Ontological Argument

Dean Zimmerman and Alvin Plantinga discuss the ontological argument for the existence of God. After Kant's, and others', critiques of Anselm, most philosophers regarded the ontological argument as a failed argument for theism--perhaps useful for theology, but not useful for demonstrating that God exists. However, in the 20th Century, Alvin Plantinga and others reworked the argument by incorporating modal logic. Plantinga's version of the argument, while often confusing to non-philosophers, is relatively uncontroversial among philosophers today in terms of its logic and conclusion. By admitting the possibility of God, a standard theorem of modal logic leads to the conclusion that God exists. Atheists are quick to respond by denying the possibility of God in order to side-step the argument's conclusion. But is it rational to make such a bold claim? That God cannot possibly exist?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Natural theology
• philosophy of religion
• Anselm
• perfect being theology
• necessary being
• existence of God
• Kant
• theism
• atheism
• idea of God

[elnauhual]

In the modal logic. Possible does no mean.. "it may" as on would expect in statistics adn in daily life:

.

Posibly in modal logic means

"it exists in at least one posible world"...

And that exactly what one is trying to proove... that god exists....

the problem with modal logic is that the term "posible worlds" is not intuitive.

Also, Platinga uses an axiom of modal logic that stats that "If P is posible, then P is necesary..." so it´s use is controversial.

[waterwords19]

@GandolftheGreyMatter And to continue my argument, by what standards do you throw the word "perfect" around? That's to say, what are you suggesting perfect is and how do you come to that conclusion. Most people would argue the meaning of "perfect" to be arbitrary in this context. You're premises do not in anyway arrive at your conclusion in a logical manner. And not only that but you'e second premise is 100% subjective. I would like to argue what you mean by invulnerable as well.

[waterwords19]

@GandolftheGreyMatter that makes no sense... you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that P1) Non-existence is invulnerable, immutable, and timeless. P2) Non-existence is more perfect than existence C1) God doesn't exist..... First off, you're not at all saying that non-existence is truly "nothing," which I think is what you're trying to say. You've given characteristics (invulnerability, timelessness, etc.) to something that you claim cannot exist. "Nothing" cannot "have" anything.

[GandolftheGreyMatter]

non-existence > existence. The non-existent is invulnerable, immutable, and timeless. non-existence is more perfect than existence. Therefore, by necessity, god is non-existent.

[emailpobox666]

@kathleenwilson25 a property that a thing can either possess or lack. When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people assert that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence

[kathleenwilson25]

@emailpobox666

Why isn't existence a property? And what isn't it a property of?

[emailpobox666]

@JPBuysjr Another thing existence is not a Property. Please get your arguments strait

[emailpobox666]

@JPBuysjr One suggestion . If you'd actually like me to respond please address comments to me

[emailpobox666]

@JPBuysjr "A maximally great being would be one that would have to exist of course, " really ? you sound like Craig when get gets his but kicked . Common sense and intuition

[emailpobox666]

@JPBuysjr GMP's are incoherent. But thanks again for proving the OA a Failure.