No, I didn't come up with this. I remember first coming across it by the uploader of those 2 YouTube videos I posted, and in a blog post by a graduate philosophy student on it
(http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/12/1...fway-good/). I later went through Plantinga's original paper on his MOA and he seemed to conclude with what the aforementioned people did: The his argument alone cannot establish it's conclusion:
I disagree, but his paper seems to contain a few instances where he references this problem of it only working if you can establish the first premise outside of this argument.
(http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/12/1...fway-good/). I later went through Plantinga's original paper on his MOA and he seemed to conclude with what the aforementioned people did: The his argument alone cannot establish it's conclusion:
Plantinga Wrote:But obviously this isn't a proof; no one who didn't already accept the conclusion, would accept the first premise. The ontological argument we've been examining isn't just like this one, of course, but it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise -- that the existence of a maximally great being is possible -- will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology.
I disagree, but his paper seems to contain a few instances where he references this problem of it only working if you can establish the first premise outside of this argument.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
-George Carlin
