Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Explain this part of the ontological argument

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:20:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Premise 4 of Plantinga's OA is

"If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."

How do you make the connection of every possible world, to the actual world? It doesn't matter if God exists in every possible reality, it matters if he exists in the actual reality! Our reality is what gives us the ability to say what a possible reality is. Our world isn't a possible world, it's the actual world. I don't see how the connection is made. Can someone explain?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 3:42:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The actual world is a possible world.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 3:46:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 3:42:06 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
The actual world is a possible world.

If our world weren't a possible world, then there would have to be some logical contradiction in its contingent propositions. There isn't (since it exists) and so it's a possible world.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 6:53:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This world is a possible world (otherwise it wouldn't exist). Non-possible world don't exist. This one does. Therefore, this is a possible world.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:47:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Luckily I don't think a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:20:00 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Premise 4 of Plantinga's OA is

"If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."

How do you make the connection of every possible world, to the actual world? It doesn't matter if God exists in every possible reality, it matters if he exists in the actual reality! Our reality is what gives us the ability to say what a possible reality is. Our world isn't a possible world, it's the actual world. I don't see how the connection is made. Can someone explain?

The connection is easy. Only things which are possible, can actualize (if it wasn't possible, then how could it actualize?). Thus, if we are in an actual world, that means that our world must be possible. Therefore, if something exists in all possible worlds, it would exists in the actual world, because since it is actual, it has to be possible as well.
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:20:00 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Premise 4 of Plantinga's OA is

"If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."

How do you make the connection of every possible world, to the actual world? It doesn't matter if God exists in every possible reality, it matters if he exists in the actual reality! Our reality is what gives us the ability to say what a possible reality is. Our world isn't a possible world, it's the actual world. I don't see how the connection is made. Can someone explain?

In my view, the more suspiscious premise is the one stating "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:57:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:47:41 PM, Magicr wrote:
In my view, the more suspiscious premise is the one stating "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world."

You shouldn't be suspicious of that premise because that premise follows from the definition of a maximally great being. Alvin Plantinga defines it as a being that has maximal excellence in all possible worlds. If a being that had maximally excellence in all possible worlds existed in at least one possible world, then it would necessarily exist in all possible worlds.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 2:19:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:47:41 PM, Magicr wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:20:00 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Premise 4 of Plantinga's OA is

"If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."

How do you make the connection of every possible world, to the actual world? It doesn't matter if God exists in every possible reality, it matters if he exists in the actual reality! Our reality is what gives us the ability to say what a possible reality is. Our world isn't a possible world, it's the actual world. I don't see how the connection is made. Can someone explain?

In my view, the more suspiscious premise is the one stating "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world."

It would be greater to exist in two worlds than one, and greater to exist in three worlds than two ect.

This indicates that a maximally great being would exist in all possible worlds instead of just one, because a being who existed in more worlds, would be greater, which is a contradiction (there cannot be a being greater than a maximally great being).

Since the greatest being would exist in all possible worlds, then if it's possible for a maximally great being to exist, it exists in all possible worlds.

The only controversial premise of the MOA, is:

"It is possible for a maximally great being to exist"
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 12:24:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:47:41 PM, Magicr wrote:
In my view, the more suspiscious premise is the one stating "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world."

It can be seen as definitional. If they define the MGB as something that exists in all possible worlds if it exists in any possible worlds, then you can just accept that and go on from there.

It can be seen as logically implied from the definition of the MGB. That doesn't work, but there's no reason to argue about it since the OA fails also on other points that are easier to explain. All you have to say is, "I don't believe that, but I will grant it for the sake of argument."

The fact that the MGB doesn't exist at all unless it exists in all possible worlds works to the advantage of atheists, since it clearly doesn't exist in all possible worlds.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 12:31:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 2:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It would be greater to exist in two worlds than one, and greater to exist in three worlds than two ect.

That isn't a true statement, not unless you define greatness that way, which sometimes happens. Otherwise, if greatness isn't specifically defined that way, then there's no way to establish the statement as true. It may be subjective, meaning that the speaker likes things that exist in two worlds. Or it may just be incoherent, not truth apt.

There is no reason to believe that something in the real world is somehow improved by also being in non-existent worlds.

And if we were going to claim that maximal greatness entails existence in all possible worlds, then why don't we expand on that by including impossible worlds?
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 2:49:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pretty much what Wiploc said. The MGB is defined and given a whole bunch of attributes such that any philosophical arguments about it lead to the conclusion that it exists because of the attributes that it is given.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:15:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's assume that the OA is true and let's go backward from the conclusion and see what happens.

1. It is possible that X exists.
2. If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.
3. If X exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If X exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If X exists in the actual world, then X exists.
6. Therefore, X exists.

X can't refer to anything. X needs to have attributes to make this argument work. For instance premise 3. If X exists is some possible world, it exists in every possible world. Why must it be so? We define X to be so with one of the attributes of X being premise 3. Theists call it "necessary." A necessary being is supposedly one that fulfill the exact criteria of premise 3.

Consider premise 4, the one you had a question about. X is defined in a way that if X exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Essentially,
1) DEFINE X in a way that it passes the Ontological argument.
2) Take it through each step explaining why it meets the criteria.
3) Finish off by "proving" its existence whereas the real problem is that you have defined a logical tautology (one that is true by definition). The conclusion of the OA allows you to see that it is indeed a tautology.

My main problem is that theists use it to prove "god" by defining it as logical. However, this does nothing to prove god as is generally accepted in any dictionary - the creator and ruler of the universe.

For instance, if I wanted to prove that a Unicorn exists, all I would have to do was apply the OA to it. But of course, theist have a ready answer to why the OA wouldn't work on Unicorns. They says that a unicorn doesn't have the requirements to pass the OA and that it isn't maximally great. All good arguments. The real debate comes at this point:

I'll define a unicorn and give it attributes of the following:
Unicorn: A magical horned beast such that it is possible that it exists, that if it is possible a unicorn exists, it exists in a possible world. It is necessary and if it exists in a possible world, it exists in the actual world.

Now, let's go through the OA. Premise 1 is true (it is part of the definition of unicorn). Premise 2, 3, and 4 are also true (those were covered in the defintion). Premise 5 is obvious. 6 is the conclusion. Viola. We have proven that a unicorn exists! This is the fundamental problem behind all theistic arguments that try to prove the existence of god.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 5:44:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 12:31:56 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/28/2013 2:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It would be greater to exist in two worlds than one, and greater to exist in three worlds than two ect.

That isn't a true statement, not unless you define greatness that way, which sometimes happens. Otherwise, if greatness isn't specifically defined that way, then there's no way to establish the statement as true. It may be subjective, meaning that the speaker likes things that exist in two worlds. Or it may just be incoherent, not truth apt.

There is no reason to believe that something in the real world is somehow improved by also being in non-existent worlds.

And if we were going to claim that maximal greatness entails existence in all possible worlds, then why don't we expand on that by including impossible worlds?

1 > 2, 2 >3.....This is not up for dispute. Higher numbers are objectively greater than lower numbers.
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:37:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 5:44:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 12:31:56 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/28/2013 2:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It would be greater to exist in two worlds than one, and greater to exist in three worlds than two ect.

That isn't a true statement, not unless you define greatness that way, which sometimes happens. Otherwise, if greatness isn't specifically defined that way, then there's no way to establish the statement as true. It may be subjective, meaning that the speaker likes things that exist in two worlds. Or it may just be incoherent, not truth apt.

There is no reason to believe that something in the real world is somehow improved by also being in non-existent worlds.

And if we were going to claim that maximal greatness entails existence in all possible worlds, then why don't we expand on that by including impossible worlds?

1 > 2, 2 >3.....This is not up for dispute. Higher numbers are objectively greater than lower numbers.

The numbers are of a greater value than lower numbers, but that does not necessarily justify it being greater to exist in more worlds.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:43:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 8:37:12 AM, Magicr wrote:
At 3/29/2013 5:44:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 12:31:56 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/28/2013 2:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It would be greater to exist in two worlds than one, and greater to exist in three worlds than two ect.

That isn't a true statement, not unless you define greatness that way, which sometimes happens. Otherwise, if greatness isn't specifically defined that way, then there's no way to establish the statement as true. It may be subjective, meaning that the speaker likes things that exist in two worlds. Or it may just be incoherent, not truth apt.

There is no reason to believe that something in the real world is somehow improved by also being in non-existent worlds.

And if we were going to claim that maximal greatness entails existence in all possible worlds, then why don't we expand on that by including impossible worlds?

1 > 2, 2 >3.....This is not up for dispute. Higher numbers are objectively greater than lower numbers.

The numbers are of a greater value than lower numbers, but that does not necessarily justify it being greater to exist in more worlds.

I guess that's true. Maybe there some possible worlds that lack so much greatness, that it would be actually more great to not exist in them. This world could be one of them lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:47:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 8:37:12 AM, Magicr wrote:
At 3/29/2013 5:44:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 12:31:56 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/28/2013 2:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It would be greater to exist in two worlds than one, and greater to exist in three worlds than two ect.

That isn't a true statement, not unless you define greatness that way, which sometimes happens. Otherwise, if greatness isn't specifically defined that way, then there's no way to establish the statement as true. It may be subjective, meaning that the speaker likes things that exist in two worlds. Or it may just be incoherent, not truth apt.

There is no reason to believe that something in the real world is somehow improved by also being in non-existent worlds.

And if we were going to claim that maximal greatness entails existence in all possible worlds, then why don't we expand on that by including impossible worlds?

1 > 2, 2 >3.....This is not up for dispute. Higher numbers are objectively greater than lower numbers.

The numbers are of a greater value than lower numbers, but that does not necessarily justify it being greater to exist in more worlds.

I guess the argument, assumes that it is greater to be necessary than contingent. Thus, if it's possible for a necessary being to exist, then it exists necessarily (S5).
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:04:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 8:47:39 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:37:12 AM, Magicr wrote:
At 3/29/2013 5:44:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/29/2013 12:31:56 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/28/2013 2:19:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It would be greater to exist in two worlds than one, and greater to exist in three worlds than two ect.

That isn't a true statement, not unless you define greatness that way, which sometimes happens. Otherwise, if greatness isn't specifically defined that way, then there's no way to establish the statement as true. It may be subjective, meaning that the speaker likes things that exist in two worlds. Or it may just be incoherent, not truth apt.

There is no reason to believe that something in the real world is somehow improved by also being in non-existent worlds.

And if we were going to claim that maximal greatness entails existence in all possible worlds, then why don't we expand on that by including impossible worlds?

1 > 2, 2 >3.....This is not up for dispute. Higher numbers are objectively greater than lower numbers.

The numbers are of a greater value than lower numbers, but that does not necessarily justify it being greater to exist in more worlds.

I guess the argument, assumes that it is greater to be necessary than contingent. Thus, if it's possible for a necessary being to exist, then it exists necessarily (S5).

And that's an assumption that I haven't really seen justified.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:30:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:04:41 AM, Magicr wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:47:39 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I guess the argument, assumes that it is greater to be necessary than contingent. Thus, if it's possible for a necessary being to exist, then it exists necessarily (S5).

And that's an assumption that I haven't really seen justified.

S5 is a popular system of modal logic, not to be dismissed by ignorant people like me. So I just point out that if we use S5, then it becomes equally easy to prove god's existence and nonexistence. An argument that entails contradiction is worthless. In the scales of persuasion, its weight is zero.
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:45:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:30:38 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:04:41 AM, Magicr wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:47:39 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I guess the argument, assumes that it is greater to be necessary than contingent. Thus, if it's possible for a necessary being to exist, then it exists necessarily (S5).

And that's an assumption that I haven't really seen justified.

S5 is a popular system of modal logic, not to be dismissed by ignorant people like me. So I just point out that if we use S5, then it becomes equally easy to prove god's existence and nonexistence. An argument that entails contradiction is worthless. In the scales of persuasion, its weight is zero.

The assumption to which I was referring was not S5, but rather the assumption that it is greater to exist necessarily than to exist contingently.