The Ontological Argument

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Plantinga simply defines the terms he wants to prove. For example, he tells us that a 'maximally great being' is simply that being which has the properties that he (Plantinga) imagines God would have: omnipresence, omnipotence, moral perfection, and so on.

The glaring flaw in the first point is that it is not readily obvious that it IS possible for MGB to exist. For instance, I can easily imagine a situation in which two coeval Beings surpass all other beings in excellence, thus giving us a pair of MGBs.

Point 3 strikes me the same way - Plantinga wants God to be everywhere, so he simply states that the MGB would be everywhere (and - apart from Plantinga - it is not immediately obvious that omnipresence is a requisite for maximal greatness).

I soured on ontology years ago. These word games will never prove of disprove the existence of God.

Boru[/i]

---

Stand at the North pole - draw a line down to the equator. Now draw another line down to the equator at 90 degrees to the first from the same point. At the equator draw a line between the 2 lines from the pole. If the angle between the lines at the pole is 90 degrees and each hits the equator at 90 degrees then the internal angles of that triangle add up to 270 degrees.

Helluva lot simpler to draw it on an orange.

Boru