Plantinga's ontological argument for the existence of God says,
>It's logically consistent to say that it's possible for God to exist.
>If God can exist, he exists in some possible worlds.
>God is a great and necessary being, it is greater for him to exist in all possible worlds
>God exists in all possible worlds
>The actual world, the one we live in, is a possible world
Conclusion: God exists in the actual world.
My first criticism would be that, God's existence is not logically consistent.
But it's not logically consistent in the actual world so, Could God's existence be logically consistent in another possible world, therefore proving that God can exists in some but not all, possible worlds?
>>738320
>My first criticism would be that, God's existence is not logically consistent.
I think his point is that it's logically consistent to say it's possible for God to exist, and it is since you basically can't prove the opposite conclusion, with neither conclusion being provable, both mush be possible. Where he falls apart is
>God is a great and necessary being, it is greater for him to exist in all possible worlds
This is an unverified statement, he hasn't proven in any capacity that God is either 'great' or necessary', nor explained why this would mean he exists in all possible worlds/realities.
It's also logically consistent to say that it's possible for Antigod, the God who killed Yahweh right after he made the universe, took his place and put Satan in charge of the world to exist
Possibility doesn't really mean a whole lot in a world that can only be perceived through a fallible mind
>>738349
>logically consistent to say it's possible for God to exist
What if God is a logical contradiction? Is it possible to say he exists then? I believe all definitions used by believers are, but are there any that aren't contradictory?
>great or necessary
He says that if God is the greatest being, then he should be necessary as being necessary is greater than being contingent.
>>738379
But if Yahweh can be killed, then he's not omnipotent, he died, someone was greater than him.
Omnipotent, where it means God is the greatest being there can ever be, would go against that.
>>738379
Yes, he exists in a possible word, but is Antigod therefore greater than Yahweh and so, in all possible worlds if Plantinga is correct?
>>738379
>Possibility doesn't really mean a whole lot in a world that can only be perceived through a fallible mind
It also doesn't mean anything when our knowledge is limited by the space we inhabit. If the Universe is infinite, then technically we can have an infinite amount of knowledge, how ever that knowledge is only ever useful to our universe, precluding other outside universes or forces interacting with ours in a perceivable manner. This means that even with infinite knowledge it's impossible to have knowledge outside of our current universe/reality. Theoretically you could put a god somewhere in that infinite unknowability that exists outside our reality, but I don't see the point in that as it's entirely unknowable and observable, and thus useless in our current reality.
>>738379
>Possibility doesn't really mean a whole lot in a world that can only be perceived through a fallible mind
Are you questioning if possibility can even make sense?
What is the definition of God?
Is it logically consistent?
If it's not, Can there be a possible world where it is?
Would this possible world have different logic?
>>738387
>What if God is a logical contradiction? Is it possible to say he exists then?
Well no, of course not, but the idea of a god, as and omnipotent, omniscient, unknowable god, is not logically contradictory as long as you take as a forgone conclusion that such a god does not interact with the observable world. Of course such a god is utterly pointless as your life from your perspective would be exactly the same as if said god didn't exist. The reason most religions produce gods that are contridictions is because they have gods that directly interact with the universe in a way that should be verifiable, but isn't, there by creating a logical contradiction.
> I believe all definitions used by believers are, but are there any that aren't contradictory?
Deists are probably as close as you're going to get.
>>738421
>god does not interact with the observable world
>Deists
That's what I thought.
How would a Deist respond to Plantinga?
Do they use his logic?
>>738320
>God exists in all possible worlds
I think that God exists in some possible worlds and not others, I don't see how he made that jump.
All God would be is necessary in his possible world, that's it.
>>738320
>God is a great and necessary being, it is greater for him to exist in all possible worlds
>God exists in all possible worlds
>The actual world, the one we live in, is a possible world
>Conclusion: God exists in the actual world.
How does this make sense?
Just because you give an entity the property that it must exist if it is possible to exist does not prove its existence.
>>738427
>Do they use his logic?
Not necessarily, one of the basic Deist idea stated by Hobbes is that: Causality and the Universe have a beginning and something must have caused that, and that thing is God. That's obviously an oversimplification, but it doesn't have anything to do with multiple realities, and most Deists still start from the position that God exist with out evidence of his existence, but their God, being an unknowable, is at least more logically consistent with what we know of the universe.
>>738515
Why do they believe rather than not believe? What they believe sounds very un-God like, that could just be a natural atheistic Universe.
Is God not an intelligent being to them? Or it just a mindless process?
>>God is a great and necessary being, it is greater for him to exist in all possible worlds
Define "greater". Seems subjective based on human emotions: "I like it more".
Maybe it is "greater" to not exist? Who can tell.
Unless we can reduce it down to set theory, or something logical.
According to Plantinga either God exists in all possible worlds because he is the greatest and can't not exist in a possible world, or he exists in none because he can't exist, a great being not existing in even one possible world means he can't exist in any, because then he would exist in all.
But how does God's existence in one possible world effect his greatness in another?
>>738549
>something logical
Can you use logic alone to prove something, empirical and synthetic?
>>738527
>Why do they believe rather than not believe?
No idea you'd probably have to ask a Deist. If I were to make a guess though, most probably see the complexity of the universe and the fact that we don't and probably can't know exactly what caused the Big Bang ( though that latter part was part of Deism when it was started as a movement) and reason that an intelligent being set it into motion, and since it's unlikely that we will ever being able to peer beyond the veil of the universe, that's as good a place for God as any.
>What they believe sounds very un-God like, that could just be a natural atheistic Universe.
True, this is one of the basic faults of Deism, and why it's generally died in favor of naturalism and materialism, since Deism still relies on an article of faith and not cold logic or reason.
>Is God not an intelligent being to them?
Deists do consider God intelligent, and there are debates among Deists over whether God interacts with the universe and how much, for example many Deists believe that after setting the heavens in motion, Gods only interaction was to give man the ability to reason, others believe that God has interacted with mankind from time to time in order to guide us on a proper path, Christian Deists are particularly fond of that interpretation.
Basically Deism is still theologically based, it just tries to square God away with logical thought and the natural sciences, which is why Deists have historically rejected any kind of holy text.
>>738560
He also doesn't eliminate the original problem, he's just made it so that God must exist in all possible realities or he can exist in none of them. You are still left with the possibility that God either does or does not exist.
>>738604
>( though that latter part was part of Deism
Meant wasn't here. Man I really hate English sometimes
>>738570
Apparently we can assert "God is a great being" and conclude that great ideas must actually exist in "possible worlds".
>>738612
Yeah he really didn't change the problem, all he did was use possible worlds and assert there are two options and NOTHING else.
>>738622
All ontological arguments hinge on existence being great. If that were true then, yes, God would exist in a possible world, but would he have to exist in all, or just some?
Does there exist possible worlds where non-existence is greater?
>>738604
Ah ok, so the only believer that uses a non-contradictory definition for God doesn't work, therefore no definition of God works.
Have I not disproved premise 1?
>>738379
this guy is right and i don't know how /lit/ faggots miss the point so much
>i'm in /his/
worse enough
he just means that proving something logically consistent doesn't mean it's true (and this goes both ways, proving god is real by logic or proving he isn't by logic)
>>738570
Does there exist something that is a priori and synthetic? Proving Hume's fork wrong.
>>738679
>the point
What is the point?
>>738660
I still don't know what "great" is supposed to mean.
>>738673
Not really since absolute knowledge is not possible. Belief in God and Knowledge of God are entirely separate things, belief claims absolute knowledge with out requiring evidence. The existence of a God is not precluded by lack of knowledge of one, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all, however God also being unprovable within our current knowledge system must mean that if he does exist he must act in such a way that is not perceivable or does not affect our lives in any meaningful observable way, which means whether or not God exists has no meaning to average person and is basically a pointless argument for most people.
Like I said earlier the existence of God being neither provable or unprovable means both possibilities must exist. However for God to exist, he must act in a way that is consistent with our observations of reality, which are not affected by or show signs of a deity, so a God that exists with in that set of criteria is pointless outside of information that we can not possibly know, and of course if you ask a Christian this is where Jesus comes in, and copy that for Muhammad and Islam, or the Prophets in Judaism.
>>738734
The very most
>>738759
The very most what?
Is it magnitude?
What are the units?
>>738735
So really, God's existence is meaningless. We can't say anything either way, since the Universe looks like it doesn't have a God, saying one exists adds no new information, not even how to act like the Holy books say so.
>>738320
His argument isn't taken seriously by anybody worth mentioning.
But in answer to your question, no. Logical laws don't vary by possible world. The sense of 'possible' being used is that of logical possibility. In order to talk about worlds in which some or all logical (and in some variants, metaphysical) laws don't apply, you have to introduce IMpossible world semantics, all of which are highly controversial.
>>738778
Exactly. The existence of God only has meaning if you subscribe to one established religions who claim to have special knowledge. Outside of that, the existence of God or lack thereof has basically no consequence on your life.
>>738778
>>738792
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
It matters to you. You just want to be blissfully ignorant. And yet, before God, Who knows men's hearts, you are in open rebellion, and are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
>>738807
Fuck off you deranged cultist.
>>738775
The very most of all attributes, it has no units
If you can think of an attribute (love, power, knowledge, being) God has the greatest amount of that.
>>738807
I was waiting for you to pop up, got any actual evidence to back up your claims, are you just going to ride the special knowledge train to gravy town?
>>738822
I assume that means, hate, weakness, rage, etc. as well.
>>738807
How do you know those books are the word of God? Are all holy books of God, or just that one?
>>738825
You have just stumbled upon, Russell's set of all sets paradox.
If a set contains all things, it would contain all the contradictory ideas too, i.e. God being all loving and all hating.
The definition of God favors being all Loving over all hating subjectively.
But would God, the creator of the Universe make the universe if it were all weak? How would it make it? All hating or angry? Why would it do it?
>>738822
>love, power, knowledge, being
Is he limited to just nice homo sapiens characteristics or does he have mineral and mechanical attributes too?
Does God form a matrix of "great attributes" or is he uniform distribution of "great attributes"?
Does He have contradictory aspects?
Is God both "Red' and "Blue"?
Is God "Hungry" or "Tired"?
What genre of music does God like? What style jacket does He wear?
>>738784
But an Impossible World theory would really work!
Their logic is only impossible in our, and similarly logical worlds, but not the world in which it inhabits, that so called impossible world.
Why is it controversial?
>>738843
Well obviously containing all values including their opposites nullifies all of them QED :^) *tips fedora*
https://youtu.be/kyYS-GzBSIg?t=38s
>>738846
Does God form a matrix of "great attributes" or is he uniform distribution of "great attributes"?
I don't think that's meaningful and you can't know, it doesn't change how it acts.
>contradictory
If he has all aspects he should, but a logical God wouldn't be
>Is God both "Red' and "Blue"?
>Is God "Hungry" or "Tired"?
>What genre of music does God like? What style jacket does He wear?
God is transcendent, he doesn't do those things.
>>738853
Because we can not observe world or realities outside of our own, and even if we could such knowledge is useless as by it's nature things outside of our world doesn't affect our world or observations. Whether or not something exists in a possible alternate world has no effect on this ones.
>>738877
Well then he must not be perfect I guess.
>>738888
Basically, it originates from the idea that God must require faith for some reason or otherwise he wouldn't require faith from his believers. Which is an answer to the question: Well if this God person has so much shit he wants me to do why doesn't he just come down and tell? I mean he can right? Being all powerful and all.
>>738889
Yes, this God isn't perfect, but can a perfect God exist? What is perfection?
>>738908
Why does he require faith? From the evidence we have he does, but IF he could (if he can) show himself to be real, he wouldn't need faith and be real.
God could just be the intelligent agent the chose for the universe to be the way it is (possibly to produce rational thinking life)
>>738887
But we can still consider an impossible world, would that have no use though?
>>738923
>God could just be the intelligent agent the chose for the universe to be the way it is (possibly to produce rational thinking life)
Well that's where Deism comes in, an why they generally reject religious text. The problem of God requiring faith and not just using his omnipotence to tell everyone what he wants them to do only arises when you have bunch of stories of God doing just that. People are going to naturally ask, "If God can tell Moses, Noah, and Abraham what to do, why can't he tell me?" and of course if he is omnipotent, there is no reason for him not to outside of something completely arbitrary.
>>738928
Of course, you can imagine impossible worlds all day, that's what we have fiction for, doesn't mean it affects your reality.
>>738949
But it doesn't physically effect out world by virtue of being thought about, but fiction can show us how the world would be and how people in that world act, which shows ideas about things in our world.
>>738938
Yeah, he wouldn't need to ask either, so these Books can't be right.
>>738910
>can a perfect God exist? What is perfection?
I don't know.
I let those who believe in God tell me what they think and I question their knowledge.
Ultimately it's always "the bible" or "faith" or some other axiom and then I dismiss that (I assume can dismiss axioms for free). Then we are done.
>>738846
>pedantry
So either God is impossible to exist and so meaningless or God is impossible to know and so meaningless.
Why should anyone not be an Igtheist/Ignostic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
>>738979
I'm just trying to determine which attributes are "great" and which are "not great enough".
>>738997
Well most religions claim divine revelation. They believe that God actually appeared to them and told them about himself. That's where their knowledge of God comes from, or at least that's the beginning of it.
If God had never actually appeared to anyone then I suppose he would be impossible to know.
>>739054
But they could just say its divine, when they're lying because they want something to believe.
>>739054
The trouble is those revelations are categorically the same as imaginations.
So unless we attribute the same Truth power to invention and fabrication, we cannot tell what is "real" revelation versus "delusions".
>>739075
How if you even can, know if they're real?
>>739086
You can't really, you have to just assume it's true, then figure out why you can't just assume other shit to be true as well. This is why we separate faith from science and philosophy, the latter two seek truth, the former proclaims it.
>>738320
By this logic:
>It's logically consistent to say that it's possible for God who turns girls into anime girls to exist.
>If Anime-God can exist, he exists in some possible worlds.
>Anime-God is a great and necessary being, it is greater for him to exist in all possible worlds
>Anime-God exists in all possible worlds
>The actual world, the one we live in, is a possible world
Then where the fuck are my anime girls Plantinga!? Theoretically there should be an infinite amount of varying gods affecting our world. Gods that kill us immediately upon entering our world, Gods that turn everyone who's name is Philip into blue cheese, etc etc.
>>738320
"Worlds"
WTF is this crap. The universe is our word to describe everything that exists. "another world" is a contradiction in terms
>>739086
I don't know, which is why I reject revelation as Truth. Safer than accepting it.
>>739188
Well you can theorize about other 'verses' outside of ours, and other realities besides ours, but like it was stated earlier in the thread, this is pretty fruitless as it teaches you nothing about our reality, so why bother thinking about it seriously.
>>739188
The claim is under the pretense of their being an infinite amount of varying universes (which is a theory that isn't technically an objective fact) and the idea that it is possible to traverse these universes (which has absolutely no factual backing, not even a theoretical basis.)
Basically, it is safe to ignore any philosopher who attempts to combine quantum physics into their arguments.
>It's logically consistent to say that it's possible for God to not exist.
>If God can not exist, he doesn't exist in some possible worlds.
>God is a great and unnecessary being, it is greater for him to not exist in all possible worlds
>God does not exists in all possible worlds
>The actual world, the one we live in, is a possible world
Conclusion: God does not exist in the actual world.
>>739185
It's only great subjectively to those who think anime girls being real is great, I for one do not.
But yes, his logic does allow that, nice Reductio ad absurdum!
>Then where the fuck are my anime girls Plantinga!?
In another World
>Gods that kill us immediately upon entering our world
Supposedly, God is the greatest being, great beings are all loving so cannot kill us immediately upon entering our world
But your other example, of which there can be infinite, works, that's just a contingent fact that someone was named one thing and not another.
>>739236
>great beings are all loving
uh, why?
That seems quite arbitrary and anthropocentric.
>>739233
That's the reverse version of this argument.
Similar to J N Findlay's version
>God cannot be thought of as existing contingently.
>Everything that exists can only be thought of as existing contingently.
Therefore
>God does not exist.
>>739236
>God is the greatest being, great beings are all loving so cannot kill us immediately upon entering our world
Well that's entirely dependent on your definition of 'great'
>>739241
>That seems quite arbitrary and anthropocentric.
It very much is!
Supposedly a God would not make a Universe if it didn't love us, but in fact it could hate us, and make us just to torture us in Hell.
To an Objective, non-anthropocentric God, being all Hating may be greater than all Loving.
>>739246
Great being, the most of the best aspects, being loving is better than hating, because humans say so.
>>739253
>Supposedly a God would not make a Universe if it didn't love us
How do you know?
>>739253
Is "making the universe" really even established?
That seems like a huge leap.
>>739259
Great can also mean of significant magnitude, or denote the most important aspect. Why is your definition more valid?
>>739263
>Supposedly
>How do you know?
Don't ask me, ask the believers.
>>739268
If God did exist, why would it not have been what made the Universe? What is it's purpose?
>>739272
In this case it doesn't mean Gods size, is that's what you mean by magnitude, and all aspects are as great as each other.
Mine isn't more valid, but mine says something about God that can describe him. What does yours describe?
>>739272
Great Attributes mean in this case, "behaviors evolved in primate species to promote social cohesion and increase species survival", so that if God had all these nice things that we admire about him (and nothing bad we don't like), maybe we would be emotionally drawn to worship him! Probably even obey people who claim to have realized some doctrines about what rituals we should do.
>>739277
>If God did exist, why would it not have been what made the Universe? What is it's purpose?
Because this God is strictly a logical construct and "creating the universe" doesn't directly follow from his attributes, unless we humans who are inventing this construct decide to arbitrarily tuck in "necessarily creates universes" as a "Great attribute" in his portfolio.
But we could just as well say "doesn't create universes" and that's fine. He is still god, and there is still a universe, but they are not causally related.
>>738320
this is pure garbage
>>739295
True, God doesn't have to be the creator, it's not a logical contradiction if he didn't
Are there possible worlds where God is the creator and not the creator?
If a universe has a creator, does this creator have to be God? (like, if it is created, it's necessary that it's God because the greatest being is the only thing that can make universes)
>>739315
>it's necessary that it's God because the greatest being is the only thing that can make universes
There could be a Boss God who offloads creation to a Demiurge underling God.
>>739324
>Demiurge
pls no
>>739324
But he would be the creator of those Gods and so, indirectly the creator of the Universe (by being the creator of all things)
>>739336
Relevant to the question of Creationism.
>>739336
Why? It's actually a really useful word
>a being responsible for the creation of the universe
>>739339
Again, he doesn't necessarily have to be the creator of anything, even the demiurge. They could just both be extant without any connection.
Remember that we can just make up anything we want, we are merely discussing possibilities.
>>739349
>doesn't necessarily have to be the creator of anything
What is his existence then? Existing entails you do something, what does he do?
>even the demiurge
Who made them then? If they didn't have a creator, then they are the creator of the Universe, a collective God. (Also, if God is the greatest, pretending that makes sense for a moment, can you have many Gods all equal great? Nothing is greater than all of them, they are equal)
>They could just both be extant without any connection.
So why do they both exist? Do all of the demiurge and the Boss God exist un-contingently? (Were not caused by anything else.)
>>739365
>Existing entails you do something, what does he do?
What I thought God was "transcendent" and can just exist outside of reality? Now we want him to "do something" to validate his existence...
>Who made them then?
Let make up a "Great Attribute" that says "able to exist without being created". Problem solved.
>So why do they both exist?
We we defined them that way.
>Do all of the demiurge and the Boss God exist un-contingently?
Sure.
>>739391
>What I thought God was "transcendent" and can just exist outside of reality? Now we want him to "do something" to validate his existence...
But at least the transcendent God I presented made the universe, it did something. What is something if it does nothing, it has no qualities and is equal to nothing.
The rest of what you say it the whole reason this argument can work for anythings existence and doesn't work, so really all Plantinga's logic does is prove anything you want with logic to exist when you have no empirical reason to believe any synthetic truth claim.
>>739417
>But at least the transcendent God I presented made the universe, it did something.
Then how is he transcendent if he interacted with The Universe?
>What is something if it does nothing, it has no qualities and is equal to nothing.
An imaginary construct.
>>739437
He didn't interact with the Universe. An author of a book wrote what will happen in the book without being within the book.
Also, that point was about God being a thing that has qualities, like "makes a universe" something without qualities is as you say an imaginary construct.
>possible world
What the fuck, how come he has proof there are any other worlds aside from this one
>>739467
Well then please define Transcendent because I consider Divine Creation to be "interaction with".
>>739479
Possible worlds is just a way of saying "A state of affairs that isn't true but is logically consistent to have been true"
>>739481
He is outside of his creation, interacting with is if he made the universe and then afterwards effected it.
>>739236
>>Then where the fuck are my anime girls Plantinga!?
>In another World
If the Anime-God with the capable of being in all worlds isn't in my world, then how can Normal-God be? The only possibilities in this situation are there being an infinite amount of gods traversing into our world, there is actually only one world or, there is more than one world but it impossible for even a got to traverse between them.
As we know for a fact that there isn't an infinite amount of gods affecting our world, that only leaves the last two possibilities, which mean God isn't in our world.
>>739650
I'm assuming "Amime-God" is just regular God but you defined that he also did something. This God is obviously not the one that could exist in our one, and that is proof that this one doesn't exist.
>Either, Infinite Gods that traverse or they can't or just One (that is uniform over all worlds)
>They can't traverse
>Therefore God isn't in this one
Explain.
>>739693
>Possibility 1, Infinite Gods:
If the argument supposes that a God has to exist because there are an infinite number of parallel universes, then you are allowed to suppose that an infinite amount of anything with infinite variations can exist in parallel universes. This means that there is an infinite amount of Gods capable and willing to enter our universe.
We know that there isn't an infinite amount of gods in our universe because our universe follows a set of laws. For example, we have gravity but theoretically there HAS to be a God who would enter our universe and make gravity inert. Thus, possibility 1 isn't actually a possibility at all.
>Possibility 2, Nothing can traverse universes.
Maybe there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite amount of Gods, but the only way to solve the issue in Possibility 1 is if it is absolutely impossible, even for a God, two traverse itself into another universe. Ultimately this possibility is an interesting concept to imagine, but it does not prove anything about our universe, so we are stuck at square one.
>Possibility 3, Science is gay:
The only other solution to possibility 1's problem is if there is actually only one universe, ours. In which case, the whole argument gets thrown out the window.
As Possibility 1 is actually an impossibility, it means only Possibilities 2 and 3 can make sense. Both of which contradict the argument.
>>739856
>willing to enter our universe
Maybe all entities are bound to their world
>We know that there isn't an infinite amount of gods in our universe
What if more Gods has no effect on this world? It could for others.
>there HAS to be a God who would enter our universe and make gravity inert
No, there HAS to be a world where a God did that, our world could just be one where that didn't happen, or maybe it can't happen.
>>739947
None of that can be proven or even shown.
>>738320
Starts with agnosticism and makes wild assumptions from there.
>>739947
>Maybe all entities are bound to their world
Which is exactly what Possibility 2 is.
>What if more Gods has no effect on this world? It could for others.
Because there has to be a god who has to exist a god who would enter our world AND have an effect. It is the mathematical certainty that the idea of infinite gives us.
>No, there HAS to be a world where a God did that, our world could just be one where that didn't happen, or maybe it can't happen.
It is a mathematical certainty that there is a God would would traverse to every single universe in existence and fuck with gravity.
As long as the number of universes is infinite, there is no question as to whether there are gods who won't fuck with us as they absolutely have to exist.
It takes just one God who accesses all universes to fuck with gravity, but the reality is that there is an infinite amount of Gods who access all universes.
As you can see, the argument starts to fall apart under analysis.
>>740003
His problem is attempting to combine Ontology with theoretical physics.
Fuck off with that shit, the point of Ontology is that it doesn't need scientific proof.
>>740015
But since there is infinite universe, there must also be infinite where this God doesn't transverse, unless you're saying this God must necessarily transverse.
>>740180
You are correct, however all this means is that we have imagined one universe in which the God doesn't leave his universe (which mathematically has to exist) and another universe in which the God does leave his universe (which also must mathematically exist.)
This does not get rid of the fact that there is absolutely, without doubt or improbability, a universe with a God who would come to ours and make gravity inert.
As it is a certainty that this will happen according to the logic of this ontological argument, and yet it hasn't, we can only conclude that the ontological argument is flawed.
