Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:22 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Plantiga's ontological argument.
#11
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
(November 13, 2011 at 10:32 pm)toro Wrote: Both are valid premises unless you are assuming the outcome to the statement at question.
What am I'm saying is that we know God is possible while we don't know if it's possible that God doesn't exist. This is what I'm saying. We know God is possible in possible world W. But we don't know for sure if there exists a possible world W without God. Perhaps existence is impossible without God. However God being possible in some possible world W, to me is obviously possible

Quote:You cannot say "it is impossible for God to not-exist" and still pretend you are leaving the question open. If God's non-existence is presupposed to be impossible, that means you have presupposed God exists. You can't have it both ways. Either you assume God exists/doesn't exist, or you have no answer.

The argument shows if God is possible, then he exists necessarily. I don't think that is just asserting God exists, it's rather concluding based on God's necessary nature, if it's possible such a being exists in any possible world W, then he necessarily exists.

However I would say while it's obvious God is possible in a possible world W, it's not obvious a world is a possible without God. We know the former is true, while we don't know the latter is true.

Reply
#12
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
(November 15, 2011 at 12:09 am)MysticKnight Wrote: What am I'm saying is that we know God is possible while we don't know if it's possible that God doesn't exist.

The former implies the later. Possible means it could be true and it could be false. Otherwise it's called 'true'/'false'. If you define it as true/false, you're begging the question.


(November 15, 2011 at 12:09 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Perhaps existence is impossible without God.

Perhaps existence is impossible without my dog peeing on a lamppost.

(November 15, 2011 at 12:09 am)MysticKnight Wrote: However God being possible in some possible world W, to me is obviously possible.

You are confusing the term possible used in the argument for a second term.

God being possible in a possible world means: we can premise that God exists in a possible (your second term) world, and we can premise that God does not exist in a possible (your second term) world. Both premises are possible (your first term).

This is what makes the S5 axiom so trivial regarding such general truths: one can potentially create an infinite regress of worlds and define the rules to be whatever one wants. I eluded to this in my earlier post.

Observe:
Quote:1. God is a being that, if it exists, it exists necessarily (premise 1)
2.1 There is a possible world, P_{-N}, in which one can premise that either there is a possible world P_{1} in which God exists or there is a possible world P_{2} in which God does not exist. (premise 2.1)
2.2 There is a possible world, P_{-N+1}, in which one can not premise that there is a possible world, P_{-N}, in which one can premise that either there is a possible world P_{1} in which God exists or there is a possible world P_{2} in which God does not exist. (premise 2.2)
...
2.2N There is a possible world, P_{N}, in which... there is a possible world, P_{-N+1}, in which one can not premise that there is a possible world, P_{-N}, in which one can premise that either there is a possible world P_{1} in which God exists or there is a possible world P_{2} in which God does not exist. (premise 2.2N)
...
and so on.

The end point being: the ontological argument is arbitrary nonsense.
Reply
#13
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
(November 16, 2011 at 12:17 am)toro Wrote: The former implies the later. Possible means it could be true and it could be false. Otherwise it's called 'true'/'false'. If you define it as true/false, you're begging the question.

Well stating it could be true, doesn't necessarily state it could be false. I disagree with this. Possible simple means it could be, it doesn't mean it could possible not be
Quote:God being possible in a possible world means: we can premise that God exists in a possible (your second term) world, and we can premise that God does not exist in a possible (your second term) world. Both premises are possible (your first term).

No it doesn't mean we can premise God not existing in a world. Both premises are not shown to be possible. We don't know whether a world can exist without God. If God is a Necessary Being and exists, then a world cannot exist without God.

Reply
#14
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
MysticKnight... I've explained this whole thing already. There is no reason one cannot apply such a premise.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that one cannot apply a given premise. You validate this by saying, "I don't think so" (opinion), assuming non-existence is not possible (begging the question), and using the result to justify the premise (circular reasoning).

Also, congrats for committing the argument from argumentation fallacy.
Reply
#15
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
(November 16, 2011 at 1:34 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Well stating it could be true, doesn't necessarily state it could be false. I disagree with this. Possible simple means it could be, it doesn't mean it could possible not be

Wrong!

pos·si·ble adj \ˈpä-sə-bəl\

    1. being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization <a possible but difficult task>
    2. being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners <the best possible care> <the worst possible circumstance>
    1. being something that may or may not occur <a possible surprise visit>
    2. being something that may or may not be true or actual <possible explanation>
  1. having an indicated potential <a possible housing site>
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson

God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders

Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Reply
#16
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
One weakness of this argument is that which "Necessary Being" is possible.

If more then one necessary being is possible, then different necessary beings all must exist, by this proposition.

So a Punishing Wrathful Creator is logically possible just must as a Merciful Forgiving Creator.

Yet both must exist by this argument.

I honestly been thinking about this, and I think the problem really lies in the word "possible" and I think the standard rules of logic applied to language don't apply to it.

Reply
#17
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
This argument fails because you can use it to prove anything since the premise itself is an assumption that anything is possible. Any argument that starts with an assumption like this is obviously flawed. It jumps to the end and then uses the conclusion to prove itself. Circular statement. If God exists you can use the same argument to prove he doesn't like someone else stated.
Reply
#18
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
I do not accept God can be argued into or out of existence. Consequently, I invite both believers and hard atheists to provide some credible evidence for their claims.

So far, nobody in recorded history has managed do so.Tiger
Reply
#19
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
(April 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm)padraic Wrote: I do not accept God can be argued into or out of existence. Consequently, I invite both believers and hard atheists to provide some credible evidence for their claims.

So far, nobody in recorded history has managed do so.Tiger
We can't very well argue something out of existence that hasn't been demonstrated to exist first.

Speaking of which, what the fuck is this "god" everyone is banging on about anyway and assumes it must be disproven first?

I can dismiss the whole concept as meaningless garbage and move on.
Reply
#20
RE: Plantiga's ontological argument.
(April 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Speaking of which, what the fuck is this "god" everyone is banging on about anyway and assumes it must be disproven first?

I can dismiss the whole concept as meaningless garbage and move on.

When you get a consistent, coherent and meaningful definition that is differentiable from "nothing" let me know please.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate by the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
- Dennis the peasant.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ontological Disproof of God negatio 1042 79224 September 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 11024 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 3170 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  On Anselm's 2nd Formulation of the Ontological Argument FallentoReason 7 3102 November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  How would you describe your ontological views? The Skeptic 10 2698 July 29, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation MindForgedManacle 23 5429 March 20, 2014 at 1:48 am
Last Post: Rabb Allah
  The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic Rational AKD 82 31099 February 17, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  The modal ontological argument - without modal logic proves atheism max-greece 15 4901 February 14, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Last Post: Alex K
  The Ontological Argument MindForgedManacle 18 6087 August 22, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Last Post: Jackalope
  Plantiga's ontological argument. Mystic 31 7875 April 25, 2013 at 5:43 pm
Last Post: A_Nony_Mouse



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)