John Bunyan
Puritan Board Freshman
I tooked it seriously because it showed a common misunderstanding. I don't want people to get the wrong impressions on the OA. Also I think I've already answered my own objection, so that know I see that the burden of proof is always on the atheist - and he will never be able to prove that it is possible that God does not exist, because it is not.They don't exist in all possible worlds. That's my point. You're the one trying to mock the ontological argument with a Gaunillo kind of analogy. That's the point: they're not necessary beings, therefore the ontological argument has nothing to do with them.
You responded to a post that was not directed to you, I had a laugh with a brother in agreement on this, and it sounds like you took it serious, sorry. I have noticed large portions of my responses glossed over and ignored. Loopie did a good job of showing the circularity of the OA, and even in your opening post you provide a valid counter response to OA. *shrug*
It doesn't really need molinism or middle knowledge. As I said, it was developed by Plantinga, who believes neither of these two ideas is true. And you're right, impossible worlds cannot coexist with possible worlds, because impossible worlds are impossible and, therefore, don't exist.Also, I don't believe you understand 'possible world semantics'. You're confusing a possible world with another universe, or something like this. Possible world = possible description of reality. Existing in a possible world = being true in a possible description of reality.
Perhaps not, I take it impossible worlds cannot co-exist with possible worlds. One of the points I was driving at is this: for all we know, in another universe there could be some very different worlds from our own, after all, we are venturing into the unknown, the speculative when we start talking about possibilities. I've honestly not dabbled much with middle knowledge and Molinism, only enough to know that it is a component of the LFW defense, and is popular among OVT's.
It proves an existent God whose some of the qualities we can know - omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience and all other great-making properties.The OA works only for a maximally great being. You can invent some other being and say he's maximally great, if you want, but them you would only be inventing new names for God.
Sounds like something I used to say to unconvinced Atheists and agnostics. As Loopie pointed out before me, at maximum OA proves a mysterious unknown generic deity, sorry but that is the truth.