Ontological arguments are strictly a priori ways of attempting to prove God's existence by way of modal logic. What this means is that within reason alone they set out to show that certain propositions are impossible, necessary, or possible. Compare this with an argument that might point to the Big Bang and state that the best explanation of the event is God. An ontological argument never leaves the realm of intuition and logic. A priori arguments do not start from the world and argue to God, rather we use modal logic to show what must and/or could be true of the world.
Take the followin
g statements:
(a) The moon is made of cheese.
(b) Bob is a married bachelor.
(c) Triangles have three sides.
Let's examine them.
We all know that (a) is false. The moon is not made of cheese; however, it is possible that the moon is made of cheese. We can all imagine in our heads that the moon be made of cheese. There is nothing illogical about the statement. It might not be true of this world that the moon is made of cheese, but it is certainly possible that the moon could be made of cheese. Therefore, it is possible, but not actual that the moon is made of cheese.
Proposition (b) asserts that Bob is both married and a bachelor, but this seems absurd. The very definition of a bachelor is a person who is not married. So put another way what we are stating is that Bob is married and not married. Can you think of a person who could both be married and not married at the same time? If I held in my hand a piece of chalk and told you that the piece of chalk in my hand was not a piece of chalk what would you conclude? Hopefully you'd conclude that I was speaking nonsense. Another example is like trying to imagine a square circle or a one-ended stick. Can you form an image of such things? Obviously not, they are both completely contradictory. Therefore, it is an impossibility that Bob is a married bachelor--there is no possible world (as in a state of affairs) where (b) could be true.
Finally, when we come to (c) we read that all triangles have three sides. This is necessarily true. If a triangle exists then it must have three sides. There is no possible world where a triangle can exist and not have three sides. Triangles have tree sides by definition. Therefore, all it means for something to be necessarily true is that it must be true.
From all of that hopefully you understand what is meant for something to be impossible, possible, and necessary. Now I am going to present an argument for God's existence by Alvin Plantinga as formulated by Norman Geisler. Please do not freak out and quit reading when I state it as I'm going to break it down so that it will hopefully be accessible to everyone.
(1) The property has maximal greatness entails the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.Take the followin
g statements:(a) The moon is made of cheese.
(b) Bob is a married bachelor.
(c) Triangles have three sides.
Let's examine them.
We all know that (a) is false. The moon is not made of cheese; however, it is possible that the moon is made of cheese. We can all imagine in our heads that the moon be made of cheese. There is nothing illogical about the statement. It might not be true of this world that the moon is made of cheese, but it is certainly possible that the moon could be made of cheese. Therefore, it is possible, but not actual that the moon is made of cheese.
Proposition (b) asserts that Bob is both married and a bachelor, but this seems absurd. The very definition of a bachelor is a person who is not married. So put another way what we are stating is that Bob is married and not married. Can you think of a person who could both be married and not married at the same time? If I held in my hand a piece of chalk and told you that the piece of chalk in my hand was not a piece of chalk what would you conclude? Hopefully you'd conclude that I was speaking nonsense. Another example is like trying to imagine a square circle or a one-ended stick. Can you form an image of such things? Obviously not, they are both completely contradictory. Therefore, it is an impossibility that Bob is a married bachelor--there is no possible world (as in a state of affairs) where (b) could be true.
Finally, when we come to (c) we read that all triangles have three sides. This is necessarily true. If a triangle exists then it must have three sides. There is no possible world where a triangle can exist and not have three sides. Triangles have tree sides by definition. Therefore, all it means for something to be necessarily true is that it must be true.
From all of that hopefully you understand what is meant for something to be impossible, possible, and necessary. Now I am going to present an argument for God's existence by Alvin Plantinga as formulated by Norman Geisler. Please do not freak out and quit reading when I state it as I'm going to break it down so that it will hopefully be accessible to everyone.
(2) Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
(3) Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
(4) There is a world W* and an essence E* such that E* is exemplified in W* and E* entails has maximal greatness in W*.
(5) For any object x, if x exemplifies E*, then x exemplifies the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.
(6) E* entails the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.
(7) If W* had been actual, it would have been impossible that E* fail to be exemplified.
(8) What is impossible does not vary from world to world.
(9) There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.
(10) The being that has maximal excellence exists in the actual world.
WHAT?! you say? Stick with me.
Take a look at the following diagram (click to enlarge):
Has it all become clear? No? Good, I'm not done.
The first world is the one in which we live. The others are possible worlds, but not actual worlds. Please note that what I mean by possible world is not anther planet, but think rather a parallel universe. I am speaking of what might be, or what could be if things were different in reality. We know that in world 1 the moon is not made of cheese, but it is possible for the moon to be made of cheese in another world. We also know that it is not true that Bob could be a married bachelor in the actual world, nor could it be true in any possible world. Thus, while the moon could be made of cheese in another possible world, there is no world where Bob could be married and not married, a square circle could exist, or we could come across a one-ended stick. Finally, it is true of every world that if a triangle exists, then that triangle must have three sides.
Now, "maximal excellence" means to have omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in some world, whereas "maximal greatness" refers to having maximal excellence in every possible world.
So, maximal greatness is possible in some world; that is, it is possible that there is a world where there is an object which is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in all possible worlds (just as it is possible that there is some world where the moon is made of cheese.) There is nothing contradictory or impossible about a world where both of these notions are known to be true. Therefore, it is possible that there is some object in some world that is maximally great in all possible worlds.
What this means is say that in world 2 the moon is made of cheese, this is quite possible. Fine, but that's all it means. Perhaps we say in world 3 it is true that there is an object which is maximally excellent, meaning that there is an object that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. Cool, neato, nifty.
However, now we state that in world 5 there is an object that is maximally great; that is, there is a possible world where an object is maximally excellent in every possible world. Yet, if it's maximally excellent in every possible world, then there must be a maximally excellent object in the actual world. Seeing as that the actual world must be a possible world, it must also be necessarily true that there exists an object in our world that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect (God).
Therefore, God exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment