tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post113642898245994570..comments2023-08-05T21:48:58.831-04:00Comments on Philochristos: Plantinga's ontological argument, part 2Sam Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136873365866570762006-01-10T02:09:00.000-04:002006-01-10T02:09:00.000-04:00I'd love to Jeff Henderson, but since I can't find...I'd love to Jeff Henderson, but since I can't find it on the internet, I don't have it either.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136841884277901992006-01-09T17:24:00.000-04:002006-01-09T17:24:00.000-04:00Hey Sam if you wanted to e-mail me that Moreland l...Hey Sam if you wanted to e-mail me that Moreland lecture that would be swell.<BR/>;)Elvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04161012426679660862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136834756709143822006-01-09T15:25:00.000-04:002006-01-09T15:25:00.000-04:00Moreland is a realist.For real.Imagine, for exampl...<I>Moreland is a realist.</I><BR/><BR/>For real.<BR/><BR/><I>Imagine, for example, if your just replaced "omnicient, omnipotent, and morally perfect" with "tall, dark, and handsome".</I><BR/><BR/>Some think of him more as the strong, silent type.daleliophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533665826521400068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136834199887806122006-01-09T15:16:00.000-04:002006-01-09T15:16:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.daleliophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533665826521400068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136815659830188962006-01-09T10:07:00.000-04:002006-01-09T10:07:00.000-04:00Jeff, I think you're confusing Anselm's argument w...Jeff, I think you're confusing Anselm's argument with Plantinga's argument. Plantinga doesn't use "existence is better than non-existence" in his argument, but Anselm does. The "tall dark and hansom" objection applies to Plantinga's argument, but not to Anselm's argument.<BR/><BR/>Now if we assume that "existence" is a property, then couldn't we prove anything exists just by including "existence" among its properties?Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136807671433204602006-01-09T07:54:00.000-04:002006-01-09T07:54:00.000-04:00Funny you would ask. I think the major problem wi...Funny you would ask. I think the major problem with Anselm's ontological argument is that it assumes existence <I>is</I> a property. But I don't think existence <I>is</I> a property. Rather, existence consists of the <I>having</I> of properties. You have to exist before you can have properties. Having any property assumes that you already exist. So to treat existence as a property seems like a categorical mistake to me.<BR/><BR/>I would recommend an audio lecture by J.P. Moreland called "Issues in Metaphysics," but it seems to have been removed from the internet. Moreland is a realist.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136799416258162962006-01-09T05:36:00.000-04:002006-01-09T05:36:00.000-04:00I think this has made me realized that I need to e...I think this has made me realized that I need to entirely re-examine my views on metaphysics. I don't actually know whether I'm a realist or a nominalist. I don't know what existence is. Is it a property?<BR/><BR/>Any suggestion on where to start?Elvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04161012426679660862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136728364496888602006-01-08T09:52:00.000-04:002006-01-08T09:52:00.000-04:00I agree, Jeff H., but I know there's an answer to ...I agree, Jeff H., but I know there's an answer to that objection. I just can't remember what it is. Your objection is similar to the perfect island objection to Anselm's ontological argument.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136692907404060942006-01-08T00:01:00.000-04:002006-01-08T00:01:00.000-04:00The problem I have with the argument is that I see...The problem I have with the argument is that I see no reason that you can't replace "omnicient, omnipotent and morally perfect" with any other qualities. Imagine, for example, if your just replaced "omnicient, omnipotent, and morally perfect" with "tall, dark, and handsome".Elvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04161012426679660862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136468840277429252006-01-05T09:47:00.000-04:002006-01-05T09:47:00.000-04:00They can observe that this world has no being of m...<I>They can observe that this world has no being of maximal excellence based on observation of evil,suffering,corruption... then using this logic that would demonstrate the non-existence of God.</I><BR/><BR/>Well that basically is the logical problem of evil. Plantinga also demonstrated to the satisfaction of most philosophers, both atheist and theist, that there is no logical contradiction between an all knowing, all powerful, and all good God and the existence of evil.<BR/><BR/><I>Can anyone deny that there exists a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated?</I><BR/><BR/>There doesn't seem to be any reason to deny it. But the problem is that there doesn't seem to be any reason to deny that there's a possible world in which maximal excellence is not instantiated either.<BR/><BR/><I> Is premise #2 really valid?</I><BR/><BR/>Premise 2 is just a definition. It doesn't imply any causal influence between possible worlds.<BR/><BR/><I>I still feel a strong intuition that this argument is true, just don't know how to prove it.</I><BR/><BR/>The way I see it, there's one of two ways of showing the argument to be sound. You either have to demonstrate that there is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated, or you have to demonstrate that there is no possible world in which maximal excellence is not instantiated.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.com