Plantinga (God and Other Minds) thinks that Anselm's argument is best understood as a reductio ad absurdum and states it like this:
1) God exists in the understanding but not in reality - assumption for reductio
2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone - premise
3) A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived - premise
4) A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God - from 1) and 2)
5) A being greater than God can be conceived - 3), 4)
6) It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived - by definition of "God"
7) Hence it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality - 1) - 6), reductio ad absurdum
And so if God exists in the understanding, he also exists in reality; but clearly enough he does exist in the understanding (as even the fool will testify); accordingly he exists in reality as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Plantinga claims God is a necessary being, and exists in all logically possible words.
Plantinga claims God is omnibenevolent.
Therefore, Plantinga has to show that the existence of an omnibenevolent God is compatible with the existence of evil in every logically possible world where evil exists.
But Plantinga claims that he can find only a few logically possible worlds that are compatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent God.
Therefore, Plantinga is conceding that an omnibenevolent being cannot also be a necessary being.
Post a Comment