I think Plantinga's modal ontological argument is valid personally.

It's the only convincing argument I've heard.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 10:22pm

Yeah, that's what I was pointing at. Maximally great can mean whatever you want it too, however defining something as maximally great, then saying it has to exist to be maximally great, doesn't mean it exists.

what's the difference between "great" and "excellent" supposed to be?

You mentioned William Lane Craig and he did not formulate this argument, just clarifying.



A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.



No, but the argument proves that it must exist if the single premise (term 3) is accepted.

I think you are not understanding the argument.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 10:27pm

I reject pretty much the whole thing as it would imply a being has maximal greatness in every possible world, however I can very easily define 2 worlds with exactly opposite qualifications for maximal greatness, thus the only way a maximally great being could exist in all possible worlds is to be a contradiction. By your own admissions contradictions cannot exist (a while ago in a long previous thread)

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2012 10:31pm

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.




1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

I reject a maximally great being has these qualities. If you define maximally great as these qualities, then okay, but I reject them as being maximally great.


2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

Define excellence, and I can define 2 worlds where their excellences contradict each other.




and the rest fall without these being answered

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2012 10:34pm

No, all logic is not useless because a great majority of it is derived from observation of the empirical world. Logic void of empiricism when trying to make a claim about something existing is ridiculous.

Lol you don't get it. Nobody cares if you reject it. It's his word to define. He made up the term. Terms in philosophy don't mean what they mean colloquially, especially when they are italicized implying that it's a made-up technical term specifically for that specific usage.

I reject that *** is an auction site, I think it's actually a laundromat.

If you don't like the words or something (you must not realize that you are not actual refuting a premise or elucidating a logical fallacy) then represent it with a symbol.

A being is e in world W if that being is omnipotent, blah blah
A being is g if it has e in every possible world

That better?




No you can't because once again Plantinga just defined what maximal excellence means in this argument.



No, you do not know what logic is. Logical propositions can use empirical terms, but it doesn't actually change anything about the logical framework. Within a logical axiom, any variable can be replaced with anything and it means the same thing.

Logic is inherently non-empirical.

FYI empiricist epistemology relies on logical reasoning so if logic is out then empiricism is too.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 10:44pm

So then do explain, if it is possible that a being who is all good, omniscient, and wholly good imply it must exist just from the possibility of it existing. I don't see how it follows.

Do you really want me to bring back the modal logic symbolism?

Ok let's try to keep it simple.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and <- definition
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. <- definition
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) <- this is the premise that must be accepted for the argument to be valid
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists. <- follows from 3
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. <- follows from 4
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. <- follows from 5

Keep in mind the strict modal definition of terms like "possible" and "necessary".

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 10:52pm