That is not true. It is true that anything that could be or could have been **essentially **different is contingent.Even with defining universe as such, it could have been the case that the universe did not exist. It could have been the case IS what is being discussed here because anything that could be or could have been diffrent is contingent.
The real critique is whether it is actually possible for a being to possess all excellencies.The fine-tuned argument contends that the Universe is so specific in its detail that, if it were even slightly different, human life could not exist. Howevr, regardless of the conditions and accidents of the Universe, necessary beings are always in existence. The real critique, however, is if a being can coherrently possess all excellencies and would those excellencies be different in any possible world otger than our own. This does not disprove Plantinga’s argument per se, but it simply say another argument must be made to lay the foundation for this argument.
Yes, essentially different, thank you. And agreed, we are at square one, which pleads an answer. Is it possible? Of course this might also require us to define a list of what the excellencies of being are.That is not true. It is true that anything that could be or could have been **essentially **different is contingent.
The real critique is whether it is actually possible for a being to possess all excellencies.
And , as yet, that question cannot be answered, which brings us back to square one.
A necessary being is logically coherent, yes, but you still have to prove that there is a being which is actually necessary.A simplified version is simply to insist that a necessary being exists. If “necessary being” is logically coherent, then one must, by definition, exist. How could a necessary being not exist if it is indeed necessary?
Belorg:#3 is not just “the result of one of the rules of modal logic”, JD, #3 is completely and undeniably true.
A being that exists in every possible world is greater than a being that only exists in some.
The only problem with Plantinga’s argument (and all other Ontological arguments for that matter) is that #1 actually means “It is possible that a being a great as possible exists”, in which case it is tautological and the argument does not get anywhere.
Qoeleth:I have some problem with Point 2, specifically ‘possible worlds’. There is no basis for believing that there is any ‘possible world’, apart from the one we inhabit.
This is linked to Point 1. Are we sure it is ‘possible’ a maximally great being exists? Does the fact we can imagine something, in fact, mean that it is possible? I can image a two headed horse, but does that mean it is ‘possible’.
I question the whole idea of ‘possible worlds’. The only grounds we have for calling something possible is if it IS. Why should I think there are other ‘possible worlds’ at all?
Otherwise it is like the story:
Q- “What might your name be, young man?”
A- “It MIGHT be Cederic, but it ain’t”
PS. I am a Theist by the way. I just don’t think this argument is valid…
That is the entire point of the argument. How could necessary being be coherent if such a being didn’t exist of necessity? Either it must exist or it must not exist. There is no intermediate position. It can’t “just” be possible by definition. That would be to hold that a necessary being is only a possible being, but how could it be possible if it is, in fact, necessary? That is like saying a circle could be a square. Both possible necessary being and square circle are logically incoherent concepts.God can’t exist in every possible world. Here’s why:
A necessary being is logically coherent, yes, but you still have to prove that there is a being which is actually necessary.
- It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
Wow! Another excellent observation! Impressive, to say the least.That is not true. It is true that anything that could be or could have been **essentially **different is contingent.
The real critique is whether it is actually possible for a being to possess all excellencies.
And , as yet, that question cannot be answered, which brings us back to square one.
Imagine you are told that the volume of a sphere is the cube of the radius multiplied by pi and 4/3. This does not have any glaring internal contradictions, so it is coherent. If it is true, than it is a necessary truth, but without going any further to see why it is necessary, we don’t know whether it is true or not. This works the same way with God.That is the entire point of the argument. How could necessary being be coherent if such a being didn’t exist of necessity? Either it must exist or it must not exist. There is no intermediate position. It can’t “just” be possible.
If a mathematical truth is necessarily true, then it exists as a truth, i.e., is true, in all possible worlds. If a necessary being exists then it exists as being in all possible worlds. Mathematical truths and necessary beings could both obtain in all possible worlds but they have different modes of existing.Imagine you are told that the volume of a sphere is the cube of the radius multiplied by pi and 4/3. This does not have any glaring internal contradictions, so it is coherent. If it is true, than it is a necessary truth, but without going any further to see why it is necessary, we don’t know whether it is true or not. This works the same way with God.
The argument was that if a necessary being is coherent, than a necessary being must exist. 2+2=dog is not coherent. that the volume of a sphere is the square of the radius multiplied by 5/9 is coherent; we know what the equation is attempting to proove, yet the equation is false. Likewise, the existence of a necessary being is coherent, but that doesn’t mean that it exists.If a mathematical truth is necessarily true, then it exists as a truth, i.e., is true, in all possible worlds. If a necessary being exists then it exists as being in all possible worlds. Mathematical truths and necessary beings could both obtain in all possible worlds but they have different modes of existing.
This doesn’t disprove the argument.
You are not understanding what a necessary being would entail, then. You are not entertaining the coherence of the idea “necessary” being. You have something else in mind and claiming that idea is coherent but may not exist. Necessary means necessary, not likely or improbable, or some other term that you are trying to incorporate into the idea of necessary. Existing “by necessity” cannot be coherently entertained with “still might not exist.”Likewise, the existence of a necessary being is coherent, but that doesn’t mean that it exists.
Yes, you are quite right. A null-universe is certainly ‘possible’ in the sense of being logically coherent. Therefore, there is no ‘necessary’ being. In the same way, given the locial coherence of a null-state, there is no ‘necessary’ universe. Indeed, I doubt our universe exists- since it is ‘becoming’, not ‘being’. The most probable hypothesis is that NOTHING exists, not this universe, nor any other possible universe.There are lots of points to be made here.
As PP correctly pointed out, “necessary” existence means that “something” must exist in all the possible worlds. It has nothing to do with being “not dependent on something else”. A problem is that people like to use the word “being” which - unfortunately - implies a living and conscious entity - already skewing the playing field. So let’s just use the neutral word: “entity”.
“Contingent” existence does not mean that the “thing” which is contingent is dependent on something else. It only means that this “thing” does not appear in all the possible worlds.
The phrase “possible world” simply describes a a state of affairs, which is without an internal logical inconsistency.
Now the so called “mathematical truths” are nothing but “necessarily” true. Observe the confusing use of “necessarily” here. Mathematical thuths are “contingent” - dependent upon - the axioms chosen. Concepts are not ontologically existing “things”. In a world, where there are no sentient beings, who are able to formulate mathematical concepts, there are no “mathematical truths”.
Finally, there is no such thing as “necessary existence”. To prove (mathematically PROVE) this is very easy. According to the definition of “possible world” it is simply a state of affairs, which is without an internal logical contradiction. There is no other requirement. The number of “entities” in such a world can be an number. To wit, the number of entities can be zero - which is the null-world. Since in this world there are no entities at all, there can be no logical contradiction - as such it is a possible world. And since it contains no entities, there is no entity which would exist in ALL the possible worlds.
Some people cannot comprehend the beauty and simplicity of a “null-world”, they want to see a more substantial refutation. No problem. Let’s take two possible worlds, one which contains nothing, but one quark of a specific “flavor” while the other one is a world which also contains a quark of a different “flavor” (there are 8 flavors or quarks). These two worlds have NOTHING in common, and therefore their intersection is “empty” and as such there is no “necessary entity”.
Quite clearly this analysis ambiguously conflates “true for” with “true in itself.” Mathematical truths may be true for sentient beings but they do not cease to be true when no sentient being is actively thinking about them. Mathematical truths are not contingent upon sentient beings for their truth value. They are undeniably true regardless of whether they are conceived or not. 1+1 equals 2 is implicitly true, they need not have ontological existence or application to “become true” otherwise they could not be applied a priori. That is what makes them undeniably and necessarily true. They are “proofs” that have no contingent relationship to any axioms because they are deductive and not inductive in nature. Proofs that are contingent upon axioms are inductively derived. Deductive proofs are true implicitly and necessarily as a matter of logic not induction from axioms.Now the so called “mathematical truths” are nothing but “necessarily” true. Observe the confusing use of “necessarily” here. Mathematical thuths are “contingent” - dependent upon - the axioms chosen. Concepts are not ontologically existing “things”. In a world, where there are no sentient beings, who are able to formulate mathematical concepts, there are no “mathematical truths”.
The difficulty here is that a “null” world necessarily depends upon and keeps hidden by presumption, an entity, the “world,” or “container” in which the “null” obtains. So there is a necessary element even here. It may be different in kind from the distinct particular entities that are being counted, but it is a necessary aspect for the concept “possible” to even be possible.Finally, there is no such thing as “necessary existence”. To prove (mathematically PROVE) this is very easy. According to the definition of “possible world” it is simply a state of affairs, which is without an internal logical contradiction. There is no other requirement. The number of “entities” in such a world can be an number. To wit, the number of entities can be zero - which is the null-world. Since in this world there are no entities at all, there can be no logical contradiction - as such it is a possible world. And since it contains no entities, there is no entity which would exist in ALL the possible worlds.
As shown above, this is clearly false.So the concept of “necessary” existence is just as bogus as all the purported “proofs” to establish a “god”.
This is exactly right. Often times people who try to conceive of a “null-world” or a world without a conscious being to objectively perceive it are forgetting that, through their imagination, they are consciously perceiving it though conception. I think this gives credence to the Conceptualist argument.The difficulty here is that a “null” world necessarily depends upon and keeps hidden by presumption, an entity, the “world,” or “container” in which the “null” obtains. So there is a necessary element even here. It may be different in kind from the distinct particular entities that are being counted, but it is a necessary aspect for the concept “possible” to even be possible.
This is also true ontologically. One could not end up with a real world populated by any number of real entities that would obtain from a null world without something in that null world to produce the countable entities. Since, as a matter of fact we have a real world with countable entities this could not have obtained from a completely null world since nothing in the null world could have brought those about. Logically, since we do have real existents then a truly null world could not be a real possibility, therefore a non-null world is logically necessary and presupposed by the real objects that do exist. Essentially, this is the cosmological argument, which argues against the ontological reality of a null world and proves some form of being to be necessary. If necessary being is indeed necessary, then it is not only possible but, to be completely consistent, necessarily necessary, which is demonstrated by the ontological argument, the flip side of the cosmological argument. It is basically two sides of a completely whole and symmetric proof.
As shown above, this is clearly false.
The problem here is with premise one. How could there be a world where it is not possible to have a being of maximal greatness? All world’s must have necessary entities. Omnipotence is to have all power. How can there be a world where there is not a maximal amount of power to be had? At best we can argue that there are different maximums of power in other possible worlds, but omnipotence would still mean to have all power. Of course, we would have to wonder if all-power is dependent on the possible world or independent of it. So I would say it cannot be possible for a maximally excellent being to NOT be a possibility in any possible world.God can’t exist in every possible world. Here’s why:
A necessary being is logically coherent, yes, but you still have to prove that there is a being which is actually necessary.
- It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
Well, the universe is a changing (not a static) state of affairs. From that it does not follow that it “does not exist”.Yes, you are quite right. A null-universe is certainly ‘possible’ in the sense of being logically coherent. Therefore, there is no ‘necessary’ being. In the same way, given the locial coherence of a null-state, there is no ‘necessary’ universe. Indeed, I doubt our universe exists- since it is ‘becoming’, not ‘being’. The most probable hypothesis is that NOTHING exists, not this universe, nor any other possible universe.
The “cogito, ergo sum” is undeniable. Therefore I, and you, everyone else exists. How we exist, can be debated. But whether we “truly” experience what we do, or we are just “brains in a vat” (or in the Matrix) is irrelevant. Whatever we experience is the reality.Yes, I experience perceptions, but given the possibility of my non-existence (i.e. I am not logical necessary), why should my perceptions (or anyone else’s) be regarded as valid, or even existent? If perceptions within the universe are taken as evidence of the universe’s existence, obvious circularity results.
That does not mean anything.Therefore, only NOTHINGNESS exists (or does not exist). And this Nothingness has a name- GOD.
Their existence is contingent upon those sentient beings, and also on the axioms chosen. Mathematical entities are concepts, which do not exist ontologically.Mathematical truths are not contingent upon sentient beings for their truth value.
Sheer nonsense. Inductive methods (which are never “proofs”) are based upon “basic principles” which come from observation (like the principle of conservation or matter / energy / momentum / etc.). “Real” science uses induction. The basic principles are subject to change if and when it necomes necessary - that is when the predictions of the system are out of synch with the observed reality.Proofs that are contingent upon axioms are inductively derived.
Are you joking here? Deductive methods are based upon axioms. Axioms are arbitrarily chosen, and they are “true” by definition. The statements derived from the axioms are “defined” true within that axiomatic system. The actually chosen axioms of mathematics are very useful when applying to reality, but they could be chosen differently.Deductive proofs are true implicitly and necessarily as a matter of logic not induction from axioms.
You are obviously not a mathematician. You are in dire need to learn set theory. The concept of a “null-set” is not an “empty” container. There is no “container”.The difficulty here is that a “null” world necessarily depends upon and keeps hidden by presumption, an entity, the “world,” or “container” in which the “null” obtains. So there is a necessary element even here. It may be different in kind from the distinct particular entities that are being counted, but it is a necessary aspect for the concept “possible” to even be possible.
Totally out of topic. We are not concerned about the actual reality, and “how” it came to be. We are only concerned about abstract, possible worlds. If you do not like the “null-world” proof, because you cannot understand the math behind it, I gave two “actual” worlds, each with a different quark in it, and since the intersection of these worlds is “null”, there is no entity which would “appear” in all possible worlds - there is no “necessary” being. Q.E.D.One could not end up with a real world populated by any number of real entities that would obtain from a null world without something in that null world to produce the countable entities.
The “cogito, ergo sum” is undeniable. Therefore I, and you, everyone else exists. How we exist, can be debated. But whether we “truly” experience what we do, or we are just “brains in a vat” (or in the Matrix) is irrelevant. Whatever we experience is the reality. ".Well, the universe is a changing (not a static) state of affairs. From that it does not follow that it “does not exist”.
Thank you. It means Nothing. And perhaps in meaning Nothing we come closest to speaking the Truth. “The hand that erases is the hand the writes the truth”- Eckhart.That does not mean anything.