Comments on Bring the Books: Plantinga on God, Evil, and Ontology

"“God is that than which no greater can be conceiv...

2008-05-06T17:52:00.000-05:00

"“God is that than which no greater can be conceived,” I am merely predicating of the term “God” the property or characteristic of preeminent ontology. This does not mean that this God exists; it only means that IF he does, this is one property of Him."

You're saying the definition of "God" is that he is something that must necessarily exist, i.e. the definition of God is that he is something that exists. Oh that proves that God exists! Nope, because you can't prove your predicate without assuming the existence of God. Unless you can prove that your definition is correct, then you cannot prove that God exists. But you CAN'T prove your definition is correct... I might say "God is a lollipop" and the only way you can disprove me is empirically (and might I add that NOTHING can be proven empirically without omniscience, and it can only be proven to another omniscient being)... not by referring to logic and definitions. You can say, "no... God is not a lollipop... God is this..." but that hasn't proven anything, it's only shown that we have different definitions.

Here's an argument that is basically equivalent to yours.

The purpose is to define an "existent unicorn". I say an existent unicorn, because when you use the word God you assume his existence in the definition... if God is something which necessarily must exist, then God is by definition an existent God... he is by definition something that exists. But you have no other reason to say that God necessarily must exist, other than that is the definition of God, you've argued for the definition by referring to the definition...

I can do the same for unicorns... A unicorn is something that must necessarily exist, therefore all unicorns are existent and if it were otherwise then a unicorn would not be somethin that necessarily existed... but that is the definition of a unicorn and to say otherwise is to say that a unicorn is not a unicorn which would be a violation of the law of non-contradiciotn. Same logic that the ontological arugment uses to define God. So we'll go with it.

Define an existent unicorn.

1. X is an existent unicorn.
2. All things that are existent must exist.
3. Thus it follows that things that are existent unicorns must exist.
4. So in order for X to be an existent unicorn X must exist.
5. But if X is not existent then it is not an existent unicorn.
6. This would be a contradiction of premise 1 which states that X IS an existent unicorn.
7. Therefore X is not non-existent.
8. Therefore X is existent.
9. Therefore X exists.
10 If something exists and is an existent unicorn then existent unicorns must exist.
11. If X exists and is an existent unicorn, then existent unicorns exist.
12. If existent unicorns exist then unicorns exist.
13. Therefore unicorns exist.

Wallah. I just proved that Unicorns exist, using your logic. Pretty cool huh... I could also do it with Man-Bear-Pig if you like.

Heretic,

First, I got to know the reason fo...

2008-04-22T23:26:00.000-05:00

Heretic,

First, I got to know the reason for your name “heretic.” Why choose something this provocative term? It intrigues me…..

Second, you state that the ontological argument is “supposed to argue that "God is;"” and that “God's existence has been used as a presupposition to prove God's existence. Thus the argument proves nothing, and it's not even worth moving past the first two words of the first premise.”

This is an equivocation on the word “is.” My first premise does not posit God’s existence. My first premise defines that for which I am going to argue existence. Thus, by saying “God is that than which no greater can be conceived,” I am merely predicating of the term “God” the property or characteristic of preeminent ontology. This does not mean that this God exists; it only means that IF he does, this is one property of Him.

However, in any argument, you must begin with a strict definition of terms else the argument is no longer valid conclusion of truth, but, most likely, a personal opinion.

1.GOD IS that than which no greater can be conceiv...

2008-04-20T16:19:00.000-05:00

1.GOD IS that than which no greater can be conceived.

The ontological argument falls flat on it's face. The argument is supposed to argue for the existence of God. In other words it is supposed to argue that "God is".

But what's the very first thing stated in the very first premise?

GOD IS... (that than which no greater can be conceived.)

Already the argument has failed. God's existence has been used as a presupposition to prove God's existence. Thus the argument proves nothing, and it's not even worth moving past the first two words of the first premise.

Plantinga looks just like Lincoln, doesn't he? He ...

2008-04-01T11:40:00.000-05:00

Plantinga looks just like Lincoln, doesn't he? He also has this great, baritone voice (listen to that lecture of his online where he gives his infamous "Evolutionary argument against Naturalism," one of the single best arguments in the history of analytic philosophy, if you ask me). He's also over 70 years old, climbs mountains, and is a "scratch" frisbee golfer. Goofy sense of humor. One of God's gifts to modern analytic philosophy, despite his Arminianism.

I think that Clark's view has a lot of merit.
<...

2008-03-31T19:58:00.000-05:00

I think that Clark's view has a lot of merit.

However, it was really helpful to read his position on evil and sin within the perspective of knowing what he says in A Christian View of Men and Things and Christian Philosophy. Clark does a pretty good job in both of these books of explaining the basis for his entire theology and philosophy - particularly his presuppositionalism and how to verify presuppositions.

However, I personally do not think that pleading sovereignty truly excuses God from being a co-conspirator in the origination of sin - Clark has simply decided to err on the side of God instead of the side of man.

Those who err on the side of man, like Jonathan Edwards, try to explain Adam choosing sin for one reason or another - whether it is via desires or free will.

Neither of these positions really offer a satisfactory and justifiable (as in justifable belief) explanation of the origin of sin. I still think it is an unanswerable dilemma on this side of glory - but I do believe there is an actually, propositional answer...we just won't know it until heaven.

Well, I'll have to get back to you on it. I borrow...

2008-03-31T19:29:00.000-05:00

Well, I'll have to get back to you on it. I borrowed a friends copy to read a little, but didn't finish. My copy is in the mail. I think you have a better grasp on the issue than I do, so I was curious what your thoughts were on Clark's argument and if you disagree with any of it.

If I remember correctly, Clark also explained that God does work all things together for good, so even those things that seem evil to us are not because they are worked together for an ultimate good (Gen 50:20), which perhaps goes back to what you mentioned about God not be accountable to anyone.

That is a good pic of Plantinga - particularly sin...

2008-03-31T19:22:00.000-05:00

That is a good pic of Plantinga - particularly since most of his pictures are pretty goofy, like his pic on the University of Notre Dame's Philosophy Dept. page....

I have read it.

Let me know where I mis-sta...

2008-03-31T19:21:00.000-05:00

I have read it.

Let me know where I mis-state or say something incorrect….

If I remember correctly, Clark takes the route of pleading God’s sovereignty to explain the origination of evil. That is, God is truly and purely sovereign. Thus, God is accountable to no one. God, essentially, does not need to answer for the existence of sin because He does not have to justify himself to anyone, particularly a finite individual of his creation. Secondly, since God is sovereign, He could have changed the heart/mind of Adam so that Adam loved sin instead of righteousness. This is not a sin on God’s part because He cannot sin and because God does not have to justify himself to us given his supreme sovereignty – and his ways are higher than ours. Adam was still responsible to obey the law, but now he could not given the fact that God changed his heart. This leads us to defining culpability/responsibility and how Adam and all subsequent man are evil without implicating God.

Thus, a huge part of Dr. Clark's explanation of evil’s existence now and always entails his definition of culpability. That is, we normally say that someone is only responsible for an action if he had the ability to perform that action and then either choose to do it or not.

Clark states that the biblical definition of responsibility, from his perspective, was simply being under authority. If an individual is under an authority and that authority commands him to do something, the individual is responsible to do the action whether he has the ability or not. Thus, evil currently exists because God demands people to obey his law, but they cannot, so they sin and they are culpable for this sin because all people are under the authority of God and thus God’s law.

that's gotta be the best philosopher headshot i've...

2008-03-31T18:46:00.000-05:00

that's gotta be the best philosopher headshot i've ever seen, btw

Have you read Clark's "God & Evil: Th...

2008-03-31T15:38:00.000-05:00

Have you read Clark's "God & Evil: The Problem Solved"?