Necessity is not evidence

[Chas]

Once you see how the argument works, you may think that asserting or believing the conclusion; the canny atheist will say that he does not believe it is possible that there be a maximally great being. But would not a similar criticism hold of any valid argument? Take any valid argument: once you see how it works, you may think that asserting or believing the premise is tantamount to asserting or believing the conclusion.

That quote is simply nonsense. His last sentence is entirely false.

[Rampant.A.I.]

This is still going on? A refutation from Plantinga himself, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy wasn't enough, and MFM still wants to play make believe the argument is valid, because Plantinga admitted atheists would reject the premises?

Consensus: "The argument is wrong."
Me: "The argument is wrong."
MFM: "Well, A. Plantinga admits his argument is wrong, so it's not really wrong, it's just that everyone seems to think the first few premises are bullshit."

This is nothing more than an extended look at how truly brainwashed Plantinga is from his upbringing, and has no business injecting this shit into a field dealing with the foundation of knowledge.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What's missing here is an understanding of how specific arguments sit within the context of a larger multifaceted philosophy. The most one can ask for from a philosophy is that it conforms to experience and has a high degree of internal consistency. I cannot think of anything that is absolutely conclusive. From the sound of it Platinga's argument is consistent with a possible worlds ontology. My understanding of modal logic is slim at best so I must defer to those who have a better grasp of it. In general ontological arguments fail to convince, not because they are flawed, but because they only apply within an irrealist framework.

[MindForgedManacle]