RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
April 7, 2013 at 7:31 pm
(This post was last modified: April 7, 2013 at 7:32 pm by Mystic.)
One more thing we have distinguish it's not "for all we know" type possible. It's ontological possible.
It doesn't mean because for all we know, a necessary being is possible, that it is ontologically possible.
Which is why I said this argument is not concrete proof, but rather, just increases the likelihood of a Necessary Being existing, from the view point of "for all we know" and "what seems to be the case".
It doesn't mean because for all we know, a necessary being is possible, that it is ontologically possible.
Which is why I said this argument is not concrete proof, but rather, just increases the likelihood of a Necessary Being existing, from the view point of "for all we know" and "what seems to be the case".
