Templeton prizewinner Alvin Plantinga

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlNg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkLight said:
Keep in mind that this is an english translation of a formal argument. So in this setting (the one where possibility and necessity are referring to the S5 modal system, although B is actually the minimal one needed), there’s pretty strict definitions. Specifically, under the S5 system, all possible worlds are reflexive, transitive, and symmetrical. “Necessity” here also refers strictly to ontological necessity, as opposed to other sorts of necessity (e.g. necessity under the laws of nature). In plain english the problem is that necessity refers to a bunch of different philosophical concepts.
Click to expand...
The definition of “possible world” is a state of affairs, which is different from the existing world is some respect. Nothing more, nothing less. There are infinitely many possible worlds. “Possible existence” means that the entity in question exists in some world, but not all. “Necessary existence” means that the entity exists in all possible worlds. This must be the starting point for all discussions.

To demonstrate that an entity exists “necessarily”, one must examine all the possible worlds and find that the entity exists in all of them. That is an impossible task. On the other hand it is easy to show that there is no “necessarily existing” entity. All one needs to do is to find two possible worlds, which have nothing in common, which have no intersection. That is all.
 
Scowler said:
Something is “necessary” in the philosophical jargon if it exists in ALL possible worlds. It is nonsensical to say that an entity is “necessary” in ONE possible world
Click to expand...
This was, after all, one of WL Craig’s premises…
AlNg said:
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Click to expand...
The reason would be “Something [a MGB, for example] is “necessary” in the philosophical jargon if it exists in ALL possible worlds…”

You @Scowler are catching on, apparently.
 
Scowler said:
I know that many philosophers disagree on the meaning of many words. That makes their personal opinion irrelevant. After all philosophy (and religion) is nothing more than a collection of opinions - which cannot be tested against the reality. If they could be tested, they would become science.

Maybe you remember the old saying:
  1. Those who know it, do it.
  2. Those who cannot do it, teach it.
  3. Those cannot even teach it, manage it.
  4. Those who are unable to manage it, regulate it.
  5. And finally, those who are unable to regulate it, philosophize about it.
Click to expand...
And, I suppose, those unable to philosophize about it, begin to pontificate about it…
"After all philosophy (and religion) is nothing more than a collection of opinions - which cannot be tested against the reality. If they could be tested, they would become science."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Analytical philosophy is the world’s highest stakes, least interesting sentence diagraming.
 
HarryStotle said:
The reason would be “Something [a MGB, for example] is “necessary” in the philosophical jargon if it exists in ALL possible worlds…”
Click to expand...
The trouble is that this MGB is undefined, so it does not exist even in ONE possible world. Well, different people define “greatness” according to their individual opinion, rendering that concept subjective.

There are many examples of possible existence. But there is not ONE example of “necessary” existence… and that is not surprising, since it would require to analyze ALL the possible worlds, of which there are infinitely many.
 
Scowler said:
But there is not ONE example of “necessary” existence… and that is not surprising, since it would require to analyze ALL the possible worlds, of which there are infinitely many.
Click to expand...
Numbers are necessary. There is no need to scour all possible worlds to show that. We just need to show it in one possible world, because even to have ONE possible world you need – Guess what? – numbers, the number one, specifically.

Existence is necessary because in order to have any possible worlds you would need them to possibly exist or exist as possibilities.

Hence analyzing all possible worlds is not a requirement to show necessity. Nice try.
 
Last edited:
Scowler said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Numbers are necessary.
Click to expand...
No, numbers do NOT exist as ontological entities. Numbers are abstractions. In a world without entities that are able to create abstractions there are no “numbers”.
Click to expand...
There are no worlds without entities, the world itself would be an entity, an “abstraction.” And any world with entities necessarily creates another abstraction – to wit: entities. Ergo, abstractions are also NECESSARY and we don’t need to scour infinite worlds to find them. They appear necessarily – as in the abstraction, “possible world.”

Whether or not numbers or abstractions are “ontological entities” is an arguable point, not one that you can merely assert as a presumption.
 
Last edited:
Scowler said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Existence is necessary
Click to expand...
Existence is also a concept, not an ontological entity. Same problem arises.

Try again. 🙂
Click to expand...
No. If existence were merely a concept and not ontologically significant, then the difference between a horse standing in front of me and unicorn in my imagination would merely be a conceptual one.

Sorry, existence is significant ontologically and not merely conceptually.

Your metaphysical presumptions are as substantial as a wet tissue – a purely imaginary one at that.
 
HarryStotle said:
If existence were merely a concept and not ontologically significant…
Click to expand...
Who said that concepts are not significant? But they do not exist unless there is someone who can formulate them.
HarryStotle said:
Your metaphysical presumptions are as substantial as a wet tissue – a purely imaginary one at that.
Click to expand...
Haha! Says you who believes in ghosts, angels, demons and other imaginary things. I guess I will just leave you to your misconceptions… after all concepts do not have to have an actual referent. It is true that one can lead a horse to the water, but cannot force is to drink. Bye.
 
AlNg said:
There may be great beings, and greater beings, but I don’t see the guarantee that there has to be a maximally great one.
Click to expand...
It is worse than that. There is no objective definition of “greatness”.
 
So an actual hole in one in golf is no “greater” than an imagined hole in one – to use an example provided by a poster who seems to have vanished in the mist of time?

Or being actually intelligent, or actually strong, or actually courageous, or actually responsible, or actually virtuous, or pick any actual quality to focus upon, because actually being any of those things is no “greater” than only imagining that you are or not being them in the first place?

Okay, then.

Seems absurd to me, but have it your way.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
So an actual hole in one in golf is no “greater” than an imagined hole in one – to use an example provided by a poster who seems to have vanished in the mist of time.
Click to expand...
But which is the greatest? Does there have to be a greatest?
 
Is a real injury “greater” than an imaginary one? Who would choose a real beating instead an imaginary one? And what would be a greatest conceivable athlete? A high jumper or a long distance runner?
 
Scowler said:
And what would be a greatest conceivable athlete? A high jumper or a long distance runner?
Click to expand...
Yes, and there is no limit to the “possible worlds” that they are talking about. Even then, suppose that there existed only one possible world. Would the greatest conceivable high jumper be setting a record at 2.46 meters. Couldn’t you conceive of someone setting a greater record at 2.461 meters? And even greater than that with no maximum in sight? There are greater and greater in many cases, but no maximum and no greatest.
 
Scowler said:
Is a real injury “greater” than an imaginary one? Who would choose a real beating instead an imaginary one? And what would be a greatest conceivable athlete? A high jumper or a long distance runner?
Click to expand...
Nope. A real injury is much worse that an imagined one precisely because it is real. It is in the nature of injuries to not be great making precisely because they remove or diminish great making qualities. An injury takes away or diminishes the ability of an athlete to potentially do actually great things. Ditto for beatings. Clearly you don’t understand the concept.

What would be the greatest conceivable athlete? Depends upon the activity, doesn’t it?

An athlete that in reality could run the hundred meters in 8 seconds would be greater than one who could run it in 10. However, an athlete that could actually run it in ten would be greater than one who only imagines that they run it in eight. Actuality makes a difference. So actual athletes would be greater than imaginary ones without fail.

Still don’t see your point here.
 
HarryStotle said:
An athlete that in reality could run the hundred meters in 8 seconds would be greater than one who could run it in 10. However, an athlete that could actually run it in ten would be greater than one who only imagines that they run it in eight.
Click to expand...
Which one would be the greatest or maximally great?
 
Athletes engage in athletics. Thus their “greatness” is necessarily dependent or contingent upon engagement in the activity in question.

The MGB isn’t about doing something and being “great” at it, the MGB is about being: Maximally Great Being.

Now most beings are contingent. Their essence is distinct from their existence. Or, put another way, the fact THAT they are is inherently separate or distinct from the question of WHAT they are. Any greatness exhibited is, therefore, contingent upon the fact of existence. There is no necessary greatness to be grounded in their being because their being or existence is accidental and not integral.

The ontological argument isn’t about activities engaged in by beings, nor is it about contingent beings or contingent properties of contingent beings precisely because the properties of contingent beings are, in themselves, contingent and so is any possible “greatness.”

So, no matter how great a contingent being is, that greatness is separable from its existence and therefore its greatness isn’t inherently attributable to it because its existence is incidental. There is no essential greatness to be found in contingent beings because their existence itself is contingent.

This is from Gottfreid Leibniz…
It is farther true that in God there is not only the source of existences but also that of essences, in so far as they are real, that is to say, the source of what is real in the possible. For the understanding of God is the region of eternal truths or of the ideas on which they depend, and without Him there would be nothing real in the possibilities of things, and not only would there be nothing in existence, but nothing would even be possible…

For if there is a reality in essences or possibilities, or rather in eternal truths, this reality must needs be founded in something existing and actual, and consequently in the existence of the necessary Being, in whom essence involves existence, or in whom to be possible is to be actual. (Monadology 43-44)
Click to expand...
Ergo, all greatness derives from the potential for existence. Things that don’t exist CANNOT incorporate any great-making properties. Thus, contingent existents aren’t great in themselves or by virtue of what they are because their greatness is contingent not upon themselves but on something else. The maximal possible greatness would only be possible in that Being whose very essence is to exist as the source of all greatness, since all greatness found anywhere would be necessitated by the fact that the MGB exists necessarily, but that could only be true if the essence of the MGB (all the great-making properties that define what it is) necessitate its existence (that it is.)

Continued…
 
Last edited:
Thus the Maximally Great Being would have its existence as its essence (would exist necessarily) and would be the source and actualizer of all the possible great-making essences of all contingent beings, which fully depend upon the Maximally Great Being not only for their existence but also for their essences

That would be the undisputed “greatest or maximally great” Being. Wouldn’t you agree?

The source of all greatness-making qualities, the upholder of all existents and both of those necessitated from the inherency of existing by its very nature.

Can you conceive of any greater being or set of greater essential qualities?

Which takes us back to the modal argument. Either this MGB exists necessarily because its essential nature is to exist necessarily – since everything else in all possible worlds necessarily depends upon its existence – OR the idea is somehow self-defeating.

The burden is upon you to show the MGB cannot possibly exist, because if the MGB can logically exist it MUST exist. There are no other possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top