Friday, July 30, 2010

William Lane Craig Explains the Premises of the Ontological Argument

5 comments:

Jc_Freak: said...

I love William Laine Craig. Do you know the URL to his website?

Godlessons said...

Jc Freak, his website is reasonablefaith.com

I have a hard time with WLC's dishonesty here. He fully knows that the ontological argument he uses is extremely flawed, hence the reason he doesn't speak about premise 1.

Using modal logic, which this argument uses, saying something possibly exists is exactly the same as saying something actually does exist. In other words, the argument failed at premise 1, since it is begging the question.

On top of the question begging, he mixes modal logic and classical logic in his explanation, which is not valid. Anslem's and Plantinga's argument both at the same time in essence.

WLC even admits that this argument doesn't work in not so many words here. I have also dealt with this argument more extensively here.

bossmanham said...

Oi, I love people who KNOW what people are thinking.

He fully knows that the ontological argument he uses is extremely flawed, hence the reason he doesn't speak about premise 1

If you don't fully know that, then it is you who are lying, sir.

He does talk about premise one, and in the video he tells them he left that premise up to them. That is the only controversial premise in the OA.

Using modal logic, which this argument uses, saying something possibly exists is exactly the same as saying something actually does exist

BECAUSE of the logic. NOT because of presuppositions. And it only applies to something that would be maximally existent.

On top of the question begging, he mixes modal logic and classical logic in his explanation, which is not valid

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

WLC even admits that this argument doesn't work in not so many words here.

Some more dishonesty here? Looks like someone else has issues with honesty, either that or you simply don't know what you think you know. In the article you link to, Craig says, "There's no fallacy here. The whole question is, which do you think is more plausibly true: (1) or (1′)?"

DUH! That has always been the issue with the OA. Is premise 1 true? Is it possible that God exists? If it is, logic dictates that He does. Deal with it.

A.M. Mallett said...

It would be quite interesting to read of the physical description of the atheist's thought? What does his mind physically look like?

bossmanham said...

Hrm. I just read my post and it's fairly harsh sounding. Forgive me for that.