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]

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

Well, it actually isn't. Take the classical syllogism:

All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man;
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

It is patently obvious that if you accept the first premise you're going to accept the conclusion, if you already accept that Socrates is mortal. Likewise, if you believe God is a necessarily existence being, you'll obviously accept that he exists if you already accept that possible worlds are real things.

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.

I'm sorry, but you are either very dense or just a liar. I NEVER said the argument works, I said YOU don't know what you're talking about with respect to the argument. I did NOT say anything like "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." Pointing out that you are giving poor representations of the argument and aren't actually accurately representing an external source's portrayal argument is showing that you aren't giving very good reasons to reject the argument. Worse, I've repeatedly said I don't accept the argument, and I even posted a link to a thread I made 2 months ago detailing exactly why I think the argument doesn't work:

---

Modal Realism and its Myriad Problems

Now, theists think they can escape this through the lulz of Plantinga's modal ontological argument; think again. Plantinga's argument makes use of the "possible worlds" concept. Basically, a possible world is a way the world might possibly have been, other possible states of affairs. For example, there is a possible world in which we lost World War II, or where I didn't make this post (Tongue). The actual world is the way the world happens to, actually, be; this world.

The problem here is this: What does it mean to say things exist in other possible worlds? There are 2 positions here: Modal realism - which says that other possible worlds REALLY exist and that the term "actual world" is just indexical and valid relative to each world - and Modal fictionalism - which says that possible worlds are just fictions useful in the analysis of modal propositions, not as realms with real ontic grounding.

So, aside from the INFINITELY inflated ontology one tends to get with modal realism, it actually makes a complete lulzfest of Christianity. If God really exists in other possible worlds, then so do other gods. In fact, all gods ever imagined in this world and those not yet imagined - so long as they aren't contradictory - all exist under modal realism. They are all possible, therefore any monotheist holding to modal realism and the validity of Plantinga's modal ontological argument must become polytheists. Smile And accepting a strong modal realism is NECESSARY for a modal ontological proof of God's existence to work, because otherwise you're stuck in modal fictionalism, which simply holds that to be in some possible world is merely to say something about an abstract principle, just a set of compossible propositions. But under modal realism, it just leaves ontological arguments (and other theistic argument-styles such as theodicies) in complete disarray. Even God's supposed trans-possible worlds persistence doesn't allow theists to negate this without being inescapbly inconsistent on their metaphysics of modality.

So, either Christians, Muslims and the like must accept modal realism, become polytheists and fundamentally change their view of God and his relation to things like evil and other gods, or they must accept modal fictionalism and admit they have a decrepit, useless argument regarding God's existence. I don't think they like those options. Smile

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24575.html

But go on being a liar and evading points you've been rebutted on.