Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 16, 2025, 4:43 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Plantiga's ontological argument.
#21
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
First of all, if logic worked like incantatory magic, so that Alvin Plantinga could conjure a God into existence by arranging a clever syllogism, the planets and Sun would orbit the Earth in perfect circles. Second, you define a "Necessary Being" as one that must exist in all possible worlds. If there is more than one conceivable type of Necessary Being, but only one can exist in all possible worlds, then the concept is self-contradictory if by "Being" you mean a person.

Is the Necessary Being a male with threefold Personhood (Yahweh-Jesus-Holy Spirit), or male and singular (Allah, Judaism!Yahweh)? Is the Necessary Being female with a threefold Personhood (the Triple Goddess of the Wiccans), or female and singular (Atana Potnia)? Does the Necessary Being predestine some to salvation and others to perdition (Calvinist!Yahweh) or grant humans free will (Arminian!Yahweh)? Is it a One, True God (the Abrahamic monotheisms), does it manifest itself as hundreds of gods and goddesses (Brahman), or did it create gods and goddesses different from itself (Atum)? Etc., etc., and so forth.

Since there's an endless array of proposed Necessary Beings, each as likely as the others, there is no way to identify a single one as "the" Being that is Necessary in all possible worlds. Any sort of personal being is, by definition, one of many possibilities, i.e. it is this person, with these values, personality attributes, etc., rather than someone else. So, a Necessary Being cannot be a person.

Now, maybe you could argue for something along the lines of "Being-as-such" being Necessary--not a being, like a god or goddess, but the state of Being. In order to meet the standard of "Necessary in all possible worlds" this sort of Being would have to be so basic and fundamental, so metaphysically simple and undifferentiated that it would underlie all beings in all possible worlds without having any individual personhood of its own. It would be more akin to "the Tao," "the grand unified field" or "the spacetime manifold" than anything anyone could worship. But then, this wouldn't serve Plantinga's purpose, would it? Wink
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 7, 2013 at 3:46 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Angrboda - April 7, 2013 at 4:14 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Angrboda - April 7, 2013 at 6:07 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 7, 2013 at 6:49 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 7, 2013 at 7:31 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 7, 2013 at 7:37 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 8, 2013 at 9:22 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 9, 2013 at 9:18 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Neo-Scholastic - April 22, 2013 at 12:55 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Mister Agenda - April 9, 2013 at 9:57 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 9, 2013 at 11:07 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by JesusHChrist - April 9, 2013 at 11:21 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 9, 2013 at 11:31 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by downbeatplumb - April 9, 2013 at 1:05 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Lord Privy Seal - April 15, 2013 at 1:57 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 17, 2013 at 10:04 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Lord Privy Seal - April 25, 2013 at 2:08 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by A_Nony_Mouse - April 25, 2013 at 5:43 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Shell B - April 15, 2013 at 2:18 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Shell B - April 15, 2013 at 3:17 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Shell B - April 21, 2013 at 3:33 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by A_Nony_Mouse - April 22, 2013 at 12:58 pm
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by MysticKnight - April 24, 2013 at 12:16 am
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument. - by Shell B - April 24, 2013 at 1:44 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The classic ontological argument Modern Atheism 20 1197 October 3, 2024 at 12:45 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The modal ontological argument for God Disagreeable 29 1966 August 10, 2024 at 8:57 pm
Last Post: CuriosityBob
  Ontological Disproof of God negatio 1042 127316 September 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 12592 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 3841 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  On Anselm's 2nd Formulation of the Ontological Argument FallentoReason 7 3491 November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  How would you describe your ontological views? The Skeptic 10 3379 July 29, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation MindForgedManacle 23 6591 March 20, 2014 at 1:48 am
Last Post: Rabb Allah
  The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic Rational AKD 82 35329 February 17, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  The modal ontological argument - without modal logic proves atheism max-greece 15 6183 February 14, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Last Post: Alex K



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)