Modal ontological argument

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Platinga doesn't make any basic mistakes in his argument.  The form is valid.  Hence it's somewhat misleading designation as a successful argument.  From it being possible that it's necessary that p, a person can infer that it's necessary that p.

The form is indeed valid, even as it is valid in Craig’s version. But validity of form isn’t why the argument fails.

Boru

[HappySkeptic]

Here is the issue:

Let set of all possible worlds be W.

The statement "There is a possible world X such that God necessarily exists" is saying that there exists a set W of all "possible" worlds comprised of {X, Y, Z, ....}. But, there doesn't in fact have to be any such set W that has X. Where are these "actually possible" worlds? Do they exist in our imagination? That's not the same thing as existing in reality.

[vulcanlogician]

I think 3 & 4 are the sticking points. Like, that's where the fishy smell is coming from. I have serious objections to both premises.

It might even be equivocation... playing with the world "possible." When we discuss hypothetical worlds, we usually do so to demonstrate some principle or other. In principle, what flies in some possible world ought to fly in our world, if our world were to be like that possible world in some way. So possible worlds are a good way of determining what is priciply true. But actually true is a different animal.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't like the careless insertion of a classical concept, maximally great, into an arguement structured according to analytic philosophy.

Maximally Great already entails necessity in all possible worls.

[vulcanlogician]

I don't like the careless insertion of a classical concept, maximally great, into an arguement structured according to analytic philosophy.

Maximally Great already entails necessity in all possible worls.

I tend to think of "maximally great" as a reference to utilitarianism. So only a little over a century old. In philosophical terms, quite young.

---

But maybe I'm unaware of some classic that I should be.

---

So I guess it's referencing Anselm. But I always knew it as "a being greater than which no there could be." Which is different (subtly) from maximally great.

[The Grand Nudger]

That is what the argument explicitly states, yes, that a maximally great thing is x y and z, specifically. It's not a problem..."not liking it" is vague and meaningless.

There's really nothing wrong with the argument at all - it just wouldn't convince anyone who wouldn't already accept the premise that such a being exists. Don't really need an argument, at that point. Anselms version is garbo...hence platingas victorious formulation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't like the careless insertion of a classical concept, maximally great, into an arguement structured according to analytic philosophy.

Maximally Great already entails necessity in all possible worls.

I tend to think of "maximally great" as a reference to utilitarianism. So only a little over a century old. In philosophical terms, quite young.

---

But maybe I'm unaware of some classic that I should be.

---

So I guess it's referencing Anselm. But I always knew it as "a being greater than which no there could be." Which is different (subtly) from maximally great.

At some point a positive theology will show that classical signifiers, like Maximally Great and Necessarry Being, have the same signified as the All, The One , and Totality, which is the ultimate object of worship and adoration.

[The Architect Of Fate]

At some point a positive theology will show that classical signifiers, like Maximally Great and Necessarry Being, have the same signified as the All, The One , and Totality, which is the ultimate object of worship and adoration.

NO

[Belacqua]

I don't like the careless insertion of a classical concept, maximally great, into an arguement structured according to analytic philosophy.

Maximally Great already entails necessity in all possible worls.

I've always wondered why William Lane Craig gets so much attention. He strikes me as a distinctly middle-brow thinker.

Surely the Powerful Logic Brains on this forum would find Kurt Gödel's ontological argument more interesting.

[Fake Messiah]

Surely the Powerful Logic Brains on this forum would find Kurt Gödel's ontological argument more interesting.

There is absolutely nothing interesting in thought experiments as "evidence" for god, especially since it's all theists can ever offer. It just shows that gods exist solely in believers' heads.