dewinthemorning | Refutation of A. Plantinga's (Modal) New Ontological Argument - It bears repeating @dewinthemorning | Uploaded June 2014 | Updated October 2024, 47 minutes ago.
If you want a proper philosophical refutation of Plantinga's Modal ontological argument, then watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=jt2dywK1RZs
I know this refutation has probably been made in other videos, but it bears repeating, wouldn't you say?
Alvin Plantinga and WL Craig accept and use Leibniz's argument stating that god, being not only omnipotent, but omnibenevolent, had to create a world like ours, because any different world would either lack free will, or would contain more evil. Any world different from the actual one would be illogical, because then god would either be not omnipotent ot not omnibenevolent (if he doesn't give people free will). In modal arguments, like Plantinga's "Modal Ontological Argument" for god, in a thought experiment, only logical proposition can be used, no illogicalities are permitted in Modal logic. For a committed Christian, as Plantinga says he is, any "possible worlds" containing god, other than the actual world, would be illogical (because then god would be either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent). Yet he uses the concept introduced and then rendered illogical by Leibniz. In that case his "modal logic" breaks down and his New Ontological argument is invalid. The old, Anselm's, ontological is also viewed as invalid, by Dr. Plantinga himself, no less, so Christians lack any good argument for the existence of god!
As I said, the video where Plantinga proposes his "Modal Argument for the Existence of God" has been deleted, but other people took up this argument and made videos about it:
youtube.com/watch?v=zd9LjE4U-68
youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
youtube.com/watch?v=Y9WyaSccEWg
Papers by Alvin Plantinga: andrewmbailey.com/ap
One of the best refutations of the Modal Ontological Argument:
youtube.com/watch?v=O135PuFm08c
If you want a proper philosophical refutation of Plantinga's Modal ontological argument, then watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=jt2dywK1RZs
I know this refutation has probably been made in other videos, but it bears repeating, wouldn't you say?
Alvin Plantinga and WL Craig accept and use Leibniz's argument stating that god, being not only omnipotent, but omnibenevolent, had to create a world like ours, because any different world would either lack free will, or would contain more evil. Any world different from the actual one would be illogical, because then god would either be not omnipotent ot not omnibenevolent (if he doesn't give people free will). In modal arguments, like Plantinga's "Modal Ontological Argument" for god, in a thought experiment, only logical proposition can be used, no illogicalities are permitted in Modal logic. For a committed Christian, as Plantinga says he is, any "possible worlds" containing god, other than the actual world, would be illogical (because then god would be either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent). Yet he uses the concept introduced and then rendered illogical by Leibniz. In that case his "modal logic" breaks down and his New Ontological argument is invalid. The old, Anselm's, ontological is also viewed as invalid, by Dr. Plantinga himself, no less, so Christians lack any good argument for the existence of god!
As I said, the video where Plantinga proposes his "Modal Argument for the Existence of God" has been deleted, but other people took up this argument and made videos about it:
youtube.com/watch?v=zd9LjE4U-68
youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
youtube.com/watch?v=Y9WyaSccEWg
Papers by Alvin Plantinga: andrewmbailey.com/ap
One of the best refutations of the Modal Ontological Argument:
youtube.com/watch?v=O135PuFm08c
