hey Christians of pol, help me understand Platingas ontological argument?
youtube.com
at first it feels quite weird but there seems to be smth to it. Premise 1, 3 and 4 are easy to understand and so are their connections but the term "possible world" troubles me. What does Plating mean by "possible world"? Is that his original term or taken by someone else?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
why is God defined as necessary entitity in a possible world? is it possible to not have a God in a possible world?
If you don't believe in God then you're a fucking nerd who deserves to get their ass kicked, by me
Possible world is the basic idea of truth in modal logic.
a possible world is a pretty every world that you can conceive of.
didnt mean to type in the pretty
nigga u high
>If you don't believe in God then you're a fucking nerd who deserves to get their ass kicked, by me
I do, Im just trying to understand ontology, go shoot some heroin provided by the gov you dumb leaf jk bro
>Possible world is the basic idea of truth in modal logic.
My bad, I actually grasp that concept but couldnt the first premise define God as someone who is logically absurt and not omnipotent?
unless you have a good grasp of philosophy and its theories then you're not going to get the ontological argument.
>I do, Im just trying to understand ontology, go shoot some heroin provided by the gov you dumb leaf jk bro
nigga im just tryna understand how you think you aint about to get these hands
>Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
Is it?
>Is it?
logically it is.
why? because its possibel for an omnipotent Beign to exist in a possible world (unlike a square with 3 sides for instance).
>because its possibel for an omnipotent Beign to exist in a possible world
Is it?
>Is it?
It is.
Can you prove that, or is it a necessary baseless assumption for this proof?
>It is
.
is it?
And what about premise 3? If he exists in some possible worlds, he exists in all of them? Why?
>Can you prove that, or is it a necessary baseless assumption for this proof?
can you prove tha 2+2=4
I think you just answered my question.
>And what about premise 3? If he exists in some possible worlds, he exists in all of them? Why?
I think it can be argued from a position of omnipotence? not sure about that honestly...but prem 1 is crucial
can you?
Actually I can.
www.cs.yale.edu › homes › 224
If the crucial arguement is the first one, this is an arguement for everything though. Just replace God with anything else and say "X can exist". Your first premise is basically the conclusion.
This is how all ontological proofs work.
no problem.
>Actually I can.
>www.cs.yale.edu › homes › 224
nice. but notice that proof is based on axioms like 2 > 0
that's like, your opinion man
That's not an axiom, it's part of the definition.
If God exists in the actual world, he can suck a dick.
And surely a God that sucks dick is greater than a God that does not.
Ergo God sucks dick.
Chill Ricky
>That's not an axiom, it's part of the definition.
axiom=definition
checkmate faggot
Touché.
Argument from motion is superior since it doesn't make assumptions
>modal logic
into the trash it goes
>axiom=definition
Holy shit, no.
>"proofs" of God
>in any way independently testable
Pick one
why not?
Premise 1: It is possible a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists, then a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in some possible worlds, then a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in all possible worlds, then a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in the actual world, then a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists.
So show me this a nigger faggot with ten cocks then.
This kind of shit is just mind games. The universe doesn't care what humans think of, or of humans at all. We can concieve of shit that talks, but its nothing more than thought, which is hollow and empty. I don't understand why this is giving you such trouble.
>If a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in some possible worlds, then a nigger faggot with ten cocks exists in all possible worlds.
nigger faggot with ten cocks is not God, therefore jump from 2 to 3 is non sequitur
congrats, you just proved the existence of a nigger faggot with ten cocks in a possible world. you are most likle craving for nigger faggot with ten cocks
In terms of modal logic, Platinga's proof is valid.
However, the fact that Platinga defines God as the "maximally great being" (a definition hearkening back to Anselm's argument) is what calls the soundness of Platinga's proof into question. Basically, can we define "greatness" in an objective matter? "Greatness" is an axiological predicate. So, until we have worked out the problems of axiology, we are in no position to evaluate the soundness of Platinga's purported proof.
Beings gain knowledge through retension of experience, or reasoning, or some other similar system of learning.
A being who knows everything knowable is not possible, due to natural limitations of matter-based beings.
So no, without invoking the spiritual, which is nothing more than a fantasy, it is not possible. Even a perfect learning computer would not now the shit that happened on a distant planet that has since been destroyed.
woops sorry, an omnipotent omniscient nigger faggot with ten dicks, thats allows the jump between 2 and 3
>reasons a bit
>a nigger faggot with ten dicks who is in all places in all times appears before me
>holy shit i shoulda just watched The Young and the Restless instead
exactly, 'maximally great' is a completely opinionated term.
there are a lot of people who think modal logic isn't even valid because; how the fuck do we know what could be a possible world? how do we know how things could have been different? we fucking dont. but he assumes that there is some possible world that contains an entity we have never observed with a variety of super-abilities many of which a lot of philosophers doubt are even conceptually valid, like omnipotence.
The assumption that an infinite number of universes exist, seems like a stretch. Is that what all possible worlds means?