Atheism, Burden of Proof, and Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument

[Spock]

The difference between “maximally great” and “maximally wheuxeos” is that the latter is undefined. Saying that this is subjective is an entirely different claim than saying it’s meaningless. And, of course, it cannot be meaningless when a definition is provided in the syllogism itself.

“Great” is also undefined. That is the point.

 

[latin_rite]

1. There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.
2. A maximally great car owned by me necessarily possesses excellence in every possible world.
3. A maximally excellent car owned by me is necessarily actually owned by me and not merely possibly owned by me.
4. Hence, a maximally great car owned by me actually exists.

Where’s my car?

i don’t don’t know is it at the car yard. because you are too bust debating on the “internets” to earn enough money to buy one?

 

[punkforchrist]

Spock:

“Great” is also undefined. That is the point.

“Maximally great” is defined in the second premise. A being is maximally great if and only if it exhibits maximal excellence in every possible world. “Maximal excellence,” in turn, is defined as exhibiting omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness. What has been left undefined?

 

[gearhead]

“Maximally great” is defined in the second premise. A being is maximally great if and only if it exhibits maximal excellence in every possible world. “Maximal excellence,” in turn, is defined as exhibiting omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness. What has been left undefined?

Ah… so it’s a shell game. The first premise doesn’t work if you define the terms like that in the first place. Can you reasonably hold that this must be true?

“There is a possible world in which omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness are instantiated.”

I don’t think you can.

 

[punkforchrist]

That restatement is actually just a combination of both (1) and (3). Is there something wrong with it?

Just to reiterate, I’m not saying that (1) must be taken as true, via some kind of absolute epistemic certainty. I’m only saying that one may be rationally justified in accepting (1).

 

[kk23wong]

There are a great many resources on this argument already, but I’m interested in exploring it some here.

Plantinga’s version of the OA states this:

1. There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.
2. A maximally great being necessarily possesses maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. A maximally excellent being is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
4. Hence, a maximally excellent being exists in every possible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally excellent being exists.

It may surprise some that premises (2) - (4) are relatively uncontroversial. If one accepts the so-called S5 axiom (if p is possibly necessary, then p is necessary), then the only premise under contention is (1).

So, let’s ask ourselves: is it even possible that God exists? If it is at least possible, then it seems to me that weak atheism is untenable, and that a proof must be offered in support of the claim that God cannot possibly exist. This theoretically can be done by demonstrating the contradiction inherent in the divine attributes, or that the problem of evil is inconsistent with such a being. Neither of these arguments has gained much support among philosophers (the evidential problem of evil is now most popular among atheologians).

Of course, (1) also appears to beg the question. One wouldn’t accept the premise, unless he or she already accepted the conclusion. This puts us at a bit of an impasse. However, if there are no compelling reasons to accept ~(1), then (1) can very well be rationally justified, even if it is itself not compelling.

Thoughts?

From the above, “A maximally excellent being is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.”

An imaginary image derived from the differences in the presences of different level of lives. A glorified image given by ourselves (both the God - a Conscious Earth - and humankind) in the past. Desires come from the bottom of OUR heart for beauty and merits. As I used to say, “Dreams are dreams even we disuss about them”.

The God does not exist in your minds. She exists in REALITY.

The indivisibility in-between the God and us cannot be denied.
History reveals her heart struggles. Human turned them into reality.

Science is a way of thinking. Scientific minds bring philosophers new HOPE.
Philosophy MUST be REAL. Let’s make ourselves REAL.
We are the PIONEERS.

Teru Wong

 

[gearhead]

That restatement is actually just a combination of both (1) and (3). Is there something wrong with it?

Yes, there is… though I suppose it’s not so much that it creates a new problem as it calls attention to a problem that exists in the original argument.

The phrase “maximal greatness” doesn’t say anything about how great “maximal” greatness is.

In one sense (IMO the sense we must take it to conclude that it’s necessarily true), (1) can be taken as true: however you define “greatness”, things are either more or less great. Within this variation, there is presumably one thing that is so great that nothing greater than it exists. This could rightly be termed “maximally great”.

However, there’s no reason to conclude that this thing that’s greater than everything else is “perfectly” great, however this is defined.

IOW, depending on how things are defined, either (1) can’t be shown to be true, or (3) can’t be shown to logically follow from (1). Either way, the “proof” doesn’t work.

Just to reiterate, I’m not saying that (1) must be taken as true, via some kind of absolute epistemic certainty. I’m only saying that one may be rationally justified in accepting (1).

IOW, people who believe in God aren’t necessarily irrational, but people who don’t believe in God aren’t necessarily irrational either. Where does this get us?

 

[kk23wong]

Yes, there is… though I suppose it’s not so much that it creates a new problem as it calls attention to a problem that exists in the original argument.

The phrase “maximal greatness” doesn’t say anything about how great “maximal” greatness is.

In one sense (IMO the sense we must take it to conclude that it’s necessarily true), (1) can be taken as true: however you define “greatness”, things are either more or less great. Within this variation, there is presumably one thing that is so great that nothing greater than it exists. This could rightly be termed “maximally great”.

However, there’s no reason to conclude that this thing that’s greater than everything else is “perfectly” great, however this is defined.

IOW, depending on how things are defined, either (1) can’t be shown to be true, or (3) can’t be shown to logically follow from (1). Either way, the “proof” doesn’t work.

IOW, people who believe in God aren’t necessarily irrational, but people who don’t believe in God aren’t necessarily irrational either. Where does this get us?

Manipulation of her gifted power from birth to turn our world into her ideals.
Desires come from birth. The NATURE of the God **MUST BE **CHARITY and LOVE.
A glorified image is not necessary for our mother-in-common.

She should not be a manipulator.
We are children, but not slaves.
We admire her words, but we denied her physical presences in REALITY.

Our desires (both the God - a Conscious Earth - and the humankind) has ruined our world.
It is not a new religion. The God is one, but religions are plural.
The acceptance of the TRUTH is an attempt (or a first step) to save all of us from DEATH (total extinction).

Actions have to be done from now on.

Teru Wong

 

[Spock]

“Maximally great” is defined in the second premise. A being is maximally great if and only if it exhibits maximal excellence in every possible world. “Maximal excellence,” in turn, is defined as exhibiting omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness. What has been left undefined?

Everything? Omnipotence is undefined, omniscience is undefined and “perfect goodness” is undefined… (the commas between them and the “and” are defined ). Of course this definiton - even if it were properly defined, is still a subjective assessment. Many people subscribe to it, but there is no “strength” in numbers. Other people might define “maximal excellence” differently. Why should your proposed definition be accepted over other possible definitions?

 

[wanstronian]

Manipulation of her gifted power from birth to turn our world into her ideals.
Desires come from birth. The NATURE of the God **MUST BE **CHARITY and LOVE.
A glorified image is not necessary for our mother-in-common.

She should not be a manipulator.
We are children, but not slaves.
We admire her words, but we denied her physical presences in REALITY.

Our desires (both the God - a Conscious Earth - and the humankind) has ruined our world.
It is not a new religion. The God is one, but religions are plural.
The acceptance of the TRUTH is an attempt (or a first step) to save all of us from DEATH (total extinction).

Actions have to be done from now on.

Teru Wong

Terry/Teru,

In your first post on this forum, here, you seemed to be a genuine poster with a couple of valid questions. Two weeks later your entire writing style change and the majority of your posts since then have been incomprehensible twaddle with unnecessary accentuation and illogical premises and conclusions.

So one of two things has happened. Either you’ve been inducted into a very weird “Mother Earth” cult, or you’re a troll.

If the latter, do you think you could find something better to do?

 

[gearhead]

Everything? Omnipotence is undefined, omniscience is undefined and “perfect goodness” is undefined… (the commas between them and the “and” are defined ).

And it just occurs to me that some definitions of those three terms are either internally inconsistent, or they’re inconsistent with other, external things that exist (e.g. evil). In any such case, we can reject (1) as false.

Of course this definiton - even if it were properly defined, is still a subjective assessment. Many people subscribe to it, but there is no “strength” in numbers. Other people might define “maximal excellence” differently. Why should your proposed definition be accepted over other possible definitions?

I agree. In some respects, you could say that they’re just giving a sample of what “maximal excellence” would mean, and while it implies other things, the argument just isn’t concerned with them. Regardless, they’re interesting to consider. Would a “maximally excellent” being be “perfectly fluffy” or “perfectly communist” along with the attributes listed in the argument?

However, there’s another problem: many of the attributes that could reasonably be considered to be part of “maximal excellence” conflict with others that could reasonably be picked, including the ones used in the argument. For example, can a being be “perfectly good” and “perfectly selfish”?

 

[Spock]

I agree. In some respects, you could say that they’re just giving a sample of what “maximal excellence” would mean, and while it implies other things, the argument just isn’t concerned with them. Regardless, they’re interesting to consider. Would a “maximally excellent” being be “perfectly fluffy” or “perfectly communist” along with the attributes listed in the argument?

However, there’s another problem: many of the attributes that could reasonably be considered to be part of “maximal excellence” conflict with others that could reasonably be picked, including the ones used in the argument. For example, can a being be “perfectly good” and “perfectly selfish”?

I recall Larry Niver’s universe. He created lots of wonderfully complex scenarios, with all sorts of different races. One of them are cat-like warriors (Kzinti) and they hold honor, honesty and ferociousness in high regard. Their perception of “maximally great” would be the most ferocious, most honest and honorable “being”. Next to them are a herbivorous race (the Pierson puppeters), who hold “cowardice” as the highest virtue. Their leader is called the “Hindmost”, the most cowardly of all. Their imagined “maximally perfect” being would reflect that, we can surmise.

What different people hold in high esteem is based upon their capabilities and attitude, magnified to some very high degree. Just another empty speculation, based upon wishful thinking… not to be taken seriously.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

niven had an interesting book. been a while since they came out, maybe i should reread the known space universe novels. not until a memory of light comes out though.

that said, your still mangling the omnimax’s. its not what we think is maximally great, its what G-d said His nature is.

 

[JDaniel]

There are a great many resources on this argument already, but I’m interested in exploring it some here.

Plantinga’s version of the OA states this:

1. There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.
2. A maximally great being necessarily possesses maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. A maximally excellent being is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
4. Hence, a maximally excellent being exists in every possible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally excellent being exists.

It may surprise some that premises (2) - (4) are relatively uncontroversial. If one accepts the so-called S5 axiom (if p is possibly necessary, then p is necessary), then the only premise under contention is (1).

So, let’s ask ourselves: is it even possible that God exists? If it is at least possible, then it seems to me that weak atheism is untenable, and that a proof must be offered in support of the claim that God cannot possibly exist. This theoretically can be done by demonstrating the contradiction inherent in the divine attributes, or that the problem of evil is inconsistent with such a being. Neither of these arguments has gained much support among philosophers (the evidential problem of evil is now most popular among atheologians).

Of course, (1) also appears to beg the question. One wouldn’t accept the premise, unless he or she already accepted the conclusion. This puts us at a bit of an impasse. However, if there are no compelling reasons to accept ~(1), then (1) can very well be rationally justified, even if it is itself not compelling.

punkforChrist:

Aren’t you always astounded by the paucity of thought inscribed by atheists when presented by this modal argument? I mean, really, is it that difficult to comprehend? I will admit that I am not a modal logician. There are certain rules and laws, in this game, that I do not know, or know of. However, this argument seems rather straightforward, in fact, almost scholastic.

Let’s take the premises one by one:

First, premise one says: There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated. There’s no question that such a world can not only be, but can come about. In fact, for evolution to have a chance in hades of occurring, this must be so. Evolution is predicated upon the flora and fauna of this world proceeding toward greater and greater greatness of being. Survival is dependent upon it; and, we know what it means. There’s no insipid arguments such as, "well, there’s no consensus of what “greatness” means, or, there’s no general understanding of what it means, or, it’s “undefined.” All of that silliness is nothing more than “reaching” in hopes of dislodging the argument along its path. But, a reasonable person will know that for what it is.

If anyone really wishes to know what the attributes impugned of God are, look them up. They’re on the internet. They are not vague. They do not lack verisimilitude. They have been said of our Hebrew/Christian God for some 35 centuries, by the majority of mankind and most of its best thinkers. Thus, we even know to whom these attributes are predicated.

Second, premise two says, A maximally great being necessarily possesses maximal excellence in every possible world. This premise says, a maximally great being possesses maximal great-ness in every possible world. Since we are using modal logic, the instantiation of possible worlds is part of it. “Excellence” = “great-ness”, very simple. Now, what on earth is an “attribute” other than a characteristic or quality predicated of something? So, I surmise from this that there are no attributes free-floating in space. In fact, it seems that they adhere to something - a “being” of some sort.

Further, a being that possesses maximal greatness must also be necessary, in that word’s widest sense, and thus extend to the “every possible world” scenario. Or else, it would be a being that did not possess maximal greatness, and we would be mistaken as to precisely whom, or what, we were referring to. That would be our failure, NOT the argument’s failure, or the failure of mankind.

Third, premise three says, A maximally excellent being is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. Premise three may be re-stated as, “A maximally great being is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.” This is simply the short list. For the purposes of the discussion herein, it is a list that is sufficient. In fact, it is a list that is so sufficient that it contains its own possible defeater, from the point of view of one who believes the argument that because there are evils extant, God can’t possibly be maximally “good”. To those people the Church has an answer.

Fourth, premise four says, Hence, a maximally excellent being exists in every possible world. IOW, a maximally great being exists in every possible world - for clear reasons heretofore iterated.

Fifth, premise five says, Therefore, a maximally excellent (great) being exists. It is interesting to watch the atheists scamper about, desperately seeking to undo this conclusion. The absurd correlating of a being of maximal greatness with a great car is so ridiculous as to have been painful to write, much less post.

The premises all work. That being said, I can see where modal logic has its place - even Aquinas recognized that in certain circumstances. But, in general, it does not hold as much affinity with reality as does scholastic logic - and, Aquinas knew this as well.

In any event, it was enjoyable to watch what we have come to know as the “Atheist Dance.”

jd

 

[Spock]

niven had an interesting book. been a while since they came out, maybe i should reread the known space universe novels. not until a memory of light comes out though.

I certainly enjoy those books.

that said, your still mangling the omnimax’s. its not what we think is maximally great, its what G-d said His nature is.

God never said anything to anyone. And the ontological attempt to prove God’s existence exclusively relies on the human version of “maximal greatness”. As such it is fair game to rip it apart. If God wants to declare his version of his nature, all he has to do is come out of the closet. We are all eagerly awaiting his very own declaration. Straight from the horse’s mouth, as the saying goes.

 

[gearhead]

First, premise one says: There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated. There’s no question that such a world can not only be, but can come about. In fact, for evolution to have a chance in hades of occurring, this must be so. Evolution is predicated upon the flora and fauna of this world proceeding toward greater and greater greatness of being.

I disagree with your assessment of evolution, but regardless, do you think that evolution is predicated upon the idea that what it’s proceeding toward is acheivable?

Also, as has been pointed out, for the purposes of this argument, “greatness” has been defined as “omnipotence, omniscience and perfect goodness”. Taking the last characteristic, can you tell us why you would think the flora and fauna of this world are necessarily proceeding toward greater and greater goodness?

Survival is dependent upon it; and, we know what it means. There’s no insipid arguments such as, "well, there’s no consensus of what “greatness” means, or, there’s no general understanding of what it means, or, it’s “undefined.” All of that silliness is nothing more than “reaching” in hopes of dislodging the argument along its path. But, a reasonable person will know that for what it is.

I know what it is: valid responses to an attempt at false equivocation.

If anyone really wishes to know what the attributes impugned of God are, look them up. They’re on the internet. They are not vague. They do not lack verisimilitude. They have been said of our Hebrew/Christian God for some 35 centuries, by the majority of mankind and most of its best thinkers. Thus, we even know to whom these attributes are predicated.

Quite so. For instance, in Judges 1:19, we learn that the Hebrew/Christian God can be thwarted by iron chariots. Therefore, the Hebrew/Christian God is not omnipotent, which would be that the “maximally excellent” being of the ontological argument is not the Hebrew/Christian God.

Second, premise two says, A maximally great being necessarily possesses maximal excellence in every possible world. This premise says, a maximally great being possesses maximal great-ness in every possible world. Since we are using modal logic, the instantiation of possible worlds is part of it. “Excellence” = “great-ness”, very simple.

Sure, except for the second false equivocation making use of the ambiguity of language. The statement that is logically coherent could be re-phrased something like this:

In every possible world, maximal greatness implies maximal excellence.

However, to get from (2) to (3), we have to interpret it as something like this:

If a maximally great/excellent being exists in any possible world, it exists in all possible worlds.

These two statements are not equivalent.

Now, what on earth is an “attribute” other than a characteristic or quality predicated of something? So, I surmise from this that there are no attributes free-floating in space. In fact, it seems that they adhere to something - a “being” of some sort.

A physical being? But attributes can apply to non-physical things like concepts.

Does the fact that purity and fairness are attributes mean that “pure love” or “fair justice” are beings?

Further, a being that possesses maximal greatness must also be necessary, in that word’s widest sense, and thus extend to the “every possible world” scenario.

That’s an unsupported assertion so far.

Or else, it would be a being that did not possess maximal greatness, and we would be mistaken as to precisely whom, or what, we were referring to. That would be our failure, NOT the argument’s failure, or the failure of mankind.

IOW… if we applied the term “maximally great” to something that did not exist in all possible worlds, we would be mistaken. How exactly does this imply that a “maximally great” being necessarily exists?

Third, premise three says, A maximally excellent being is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. Premise three may be re-stated as, “A maximally great being is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.” This is simply the short list. For the purposes of the discussion herein, it is a list that is sufficient.

By itself, maybe. But we have to consider that the “long list” might include attributes that conflict with these. For instance, it’s impossible to be simultaneously omniscient and perfectly innocent. Therefore, we have to justify why “maximally excellent” would include omniscience but not perfect innocence, because it can’t include both.

In fact, it is a list that is so sufficient that it contains its own possible defeater, from the point of view of one who believes the argument that because there are evils extant, God can’t possibly be maximally “good”. To those people the Church has an answer.

And until that answer is demonstrated to be true, you still have the problem.

Fourth, premise four says, Hence, a maximally excellent being exists in every possible world. IOW, a maximally great being exists in every possible world - for clear reasons heretofore iterated.

Reasons that are incorrect, yes.

Fifth, premise five says, Therefore, a maximally excellent (great) being exists.

And if the previous four premises were valid, I suppose this would be a valid conclusion. Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, they’re not.

 

[JDaniel]

I disagree with your assessment of evolution, but regardless, do you think that evolution is predicated upon the idea that what it’s proceeding toward is acheivable?

Can’t answer that. But, those that argue for “evolution” argue as though it does.

Also, as has been pointed out, for the purposes of this argument, “greatness” has been defined as “omnipotence, omniscience and perfect goodness”. Taking the last characteristic, can you tell us why you would think the flora and fauna of this world are necessarily proceeding toward greater and greater goodness?

Three attributes were given for the sake of economy or because the writer did not wish to take the time to write them all down - knowing you could look them up. Your second sentence/question is childish.

Quite so. For instance, in Judges 1:19, we learn that the Hebrew/Christian God can be thwarted by iron chariots. Therefore, the Hebrew/Christian God is not omnipotent, which would be that the “maximally excellent” being of the ontological argument is not the Hebrew/Christian God.

Bible.cc . . . .
“…he drave, or he possessed the mountain, but could not NOT because the iron chariots were too strong for Omnipotence, or because he refused to help them; but because their courage and faith failed when they saw them. Jud 1:27-32 Jos 7:12 Mt 14:30,31 17:19,20 Php 4:13”

Sure, except for the second false equivocation making use of the ambiguity of language.The statement that is logically coherent could be re-phrased something like this:

Greatness and excellence are tautologous. They are synonymous. They are they same, but, this allows you an “out” if you wish to define them as being somehow different.

“Synonyms: brilliant, champion, distinguished, excellent, expert, first-rate, great, master, outstanding, superb, virtuoso” - Thesaurus.com

A physical being? But attributes can apply to non-physical things like concepts.

Analogously. The attributes we are speaking of here properly belong to beings.

Does the fact that purity and fairness are attributes mean that “pure love” or “fair justice” are beings?

Not as long as they are not left to fend for themselves. They belong to some thing.

IOW… if we applied the term “maximally great” to something that did not exist in all possible worlds, we would be mistaken. How exactly does this imply that a “maximally great” being necessarily exists?

What? And just how can that being which is maximally great not exist in all possible worlds and still be maximally great? Must I spell it out for you?

By itself, maybe. But we have to consider that the “long list” might include attributes that conflict with these. For instance, it’s impossible to be simultaneously omniscient and perfectly innocent.

According to you. How do you know this?

Therefore, we have to justify why “maximally excellent” would include omniscience but not perfect innocence, because it can’t include both.

That is silly. Of course it can. Do you know everything there is to know? If you conceded the existence of God would you think you know more, as much, or, less than Him?

And until that answer is demonstrated to be true, you still have the problem.

Actually, it is not me that has a problem.

And if the previous four premises were valid, I suppose this would be a valid conclusion. Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, they’re not.

I disagree - as I pointed out.

jd

 

[gearhead]

Can’t answer that. But, those that argue for “evolution” argue as though it does.

Those that know what evolution is know that it’s a matter of adaptation to the immediate environment. It’s not some march of progress up a ladder of development.

Three attributes were given for the sake of economy or because the writer did not wish to take the time to write them all down - knowing you could look them up. Your second sentence/question is childish.

So pointing out foolish assumptions of others is “childish”?

Bible.cc . . . .
“…he drave, or he possessed the mountain, but could not NOT because the iron chariots were too strong for Omnipotence, or because he refused to help them; but because their courage and faith failed when they saw them. Jud 1:27-32 Jos 7:12 Mt 14:30,31 17:19,20 Php 4:13”

That explanation doesn’t work with the text, but never mind. The argument has enough issues without getting deep into this one.

Greatness and excellence are tautologous. They are synonymous. They are they same, but, this allows you an “out” if you wish to define them as being somehow different.

You missed my point. Yes, greatness and excellence are synonymous, but there’s still an unsupported leap from “greatness and excellence are synonymous” to “a maximally great thing necessarily exists”. The argument uses ambiguous language to do a bait-and-switch.

Analogously. The attributes we are speaking of here properly belong to beings.

No, not analogously. We actually do assign attributes to concepts, events, and other things that aren’t “beings”.

And there are plenty of descriptors that don’t work for beings.

Not as long as they are not left to fend for themselves. They belong to some thing.

No, actually, both of those describe relationships between things, not the things themselves.

What? And just how can that being which is maximally great not exist in all possible worlds and still be maximally great? Must I spell it out for you?

You know you didn’t actually respond to the point I made, right?

You’re using the concept of “possible worlds” to play a game with us. Effectively, what you’re saying is that a maximally great being necessarily exists. If that’s what you’re trying to say, then yes, I think you need to explain yourself.

According to you. How do you know this?

By definition. “Perfectly innocent” implies no knowledge of evil. “Omniscient” implies knowledge of all things. A being that knows any evil might be omniscient, but it wouldn’t be perfectly innocent. A being that does not know evil would be perfectly innocent, but not omniscient. By definition, no being can posess both attributes at the same time.

That is silly. Of course it can.

Explain how.

Actually, it is not me that has a problem.

Yes, you do, actually. If “maximal greatness” as is defined in the argument is internally contradictory, then (1) is false. Until you establish that it’s not internally contradictory, (1) (and therefore the entire argument) cannot be considered to be necessarily true.

And simply telling us that you’ve got an argument in your pocket that you don’t care to share with us doesn’t establish that “maximal greatness” is internally consistent.

 

[NowAgnostic]

punkforChrist:

Aren’t you always astounded by the paucity of thought inscribed by atheists when presented by this modal argument?

Well, I’m not an atheist but an agnostic. But anyway, you don’t seem to understand the problem.

I mean, really, is it that difficult to comprehend? I will admit that I am not a modal logician. There are certain rules and laws, in this game, that I do not know, or know of. However, this argument seems rather straightforward, in fact, almost scholastic.

The argument is straightforward. That doesn’t mean it is sound.

Let’s take the premises one by one:

First, premise one says: There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated. There’s no question that such a world can not only be, but can come about. In fact, for evolution to have a chance in hades of occurring, this must be so. Evolution is predicated upon the flora and fauna of this world proceeding toward greater and greater greatness of being. Survival is dependent upon it; and, we know what it means.

Yes there is a question that such a world can be. For instance, this world will end, and only a finite amount of greatness of being will have been achieved through evolution (if God doesn’t exist). More greatness would have been achieved in another possible world. In fact if maximal greatness is only finite there is not a possible world in which it is achieved, since for every world there’s always going to be another possible world in which greater greatness of being is achieved. It’s like asking what’s the largest positive integer. But the premise “there is a possible world in which infinite greatness is instantiated” why should anyone accept that? That’s the whole point which punkforchrist and I agree on. If you reply “well we can conceive of or imagine such a world” then you are confusing epistemic possibility with logical possibility.

There’s no insipid arguments such as, "well, there’s no consensus of what “greatness” means, or, there’s no general understanding of what it means, or, it’s “undefined.” All of that silliness is nothing more than “reaching” in hopes of dislodging the argument along its path. But, a reasonable person will know that for what it is.

If anyone really wishes to know what the attributes impugned of God are, look them up. They’re on the internet. They are not vague. They do not lack verisimilitude. They have been said of our Hebrew/Christian God for some 35 centuries, by the majority of mankind and most of its best thinkers. Thus, we even know to whom these attributes are predicated.

That’s all fine, but doesn’t have to do with the objection I raised above.

Second, premise two says, A maximally great being necessarily possesses maximal excellence in every possible world. This premise says, a maximally great being possesses maximal great-ness in every possible world. Since we are using modal logic, the instantiation of possible worlds is part of it.

That’s true only if “maximally great” means “infinitely great”.

Further, a being that possesses maximal greatness must also be necessary, in that word’s widest sense, and thus extend to the “every possible world” scenario. Or else, it would be a being that did not possess maximal greatness, and we would be mistaken as to precisely whom, or what, we were referring to. That would be our failure, NOT the argument’s failure, or the failure of mankind.

The original argument did not sufficiently make the connection between maximal (infinite) greatness and necessary existence. Nevertheless such a connection can be made.

It is interesting to watch the atheists scamper about, desperately seeking to undo this conclusion. The absurd correlating of a being of maximal greatness with a great car is so ridiculous as to have been painful to write, much less post.

The conclusion is true given the premise. If it is logically possible that God (a necessary being) exists, then He exists. That’s what modal logic can say. The problem is that the first premise (God’s logical possibility) isn’t proven.

In any event, it was enjoyable to watch what we have come to know as the “Atheist Dance.”

Well you can call that a dance if you like.

 

[kk23wong]

Terry/Teru,

In your first post on this forum, here, you seemed to be a genuine poster with a couple of valid questions. Two weeks later your entire writing style change and the majority of your posts since then have been incomprehensible twaddle with unnecessary accentuation and illogical premises and conclusions.

So one of two things has happened. Either you’ve been inducted into a very weird “Mother Earth” cult, or you’re a troll.

If the latter, do you think you could find something better to do?

You have your eyes on me.

It is not a cult. The God does not exist in your minds. She exists in REALITY.

You admire the words of the God, but you denied her existences.

Religions are merits. The Church brings the CHARITY and LOVE (the nature of the God) to spread in our world. She must be pleased.

Christianity will never come to an end, even you know the God is actually a higher form of lives.

You think the Earth is a ROCK or a place with street name?

By the way, it is nothing personal.

Teru Wong