{"id":5150,"date":"2025-07-01T12:01:50","date_gmt":"2025-07-01T12:01:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/?p=5150"},"modified":"2025-07-04T10:48:34","modified_gmt":"2025-07-04T10:48:34","slug":"best-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2025\/07\/01\/best-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"Best Arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>instead of arguing independently, why don;t we find the best arguments in the literature<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ChatGPT said:<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>That&#8217;s a smart and constructive approach. Instead of reinventing the wheel or debating in circles, drawing from the <strong>best arguments in the literature<\/strong>\u2014whether academic, philosophical, legal, scientific, or otherwise\u2014can:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Ground the discussion<\/strong> in well-reasoned, peer-reviewed thought.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Save time<\/strong> by building on existing insights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Highlight the strongest positions<\/strong> on each side, including nuances and counterarguments.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Elevate the quality<\/strong> of the conversation beyond personal opinion.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>If you let me know the <strong>topic or question<\/strong> you&#8217;re focused on, I can help identify and summarize the <strong>most influential or well-regarded arguments<\/strong> from the relevant literature. We can compare the best pro and con positions or even build a structured debate format based on expert perspectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What topic are you interested in?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">You said:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>what is the best argument against plantinga&#8217;s argument for god<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ChatGPT said:<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Great question. Alvin Plantinga&#8217;s argument for God\u2014most famously his <strong>Modal Ontological Argument<\/strong> and his <strong>Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)<\/strong>\u2014has drawn significant attention and criticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\u2019s focus on the <strong>Modal Ontological Argument<\/strong>, since it\u2019s perhaps his most influential argument for the existence of God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Plantinga&#8217;s Modal Ontological Argument (Brief Summary)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Plantinga\u2019s version uses <strong>modal logic<\/strong> and centers on the concept of a <strong>maximally great being<\/strong> (i.e. one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in all possible worlds).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The structure roughly goes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It is possible that a maximally great being exists.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If it is possible, then it exists in some possible world.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If it exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If it exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Therefore, a maximally great being exists.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>It hinges critically on <strong>premise 1<\/strong>: that it\u2019s <em>possible<\/em> for such a being to exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Best Argument <em>Against<\/em> Plantinga\u2019s Ontological Argument<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>The Most Common and Powerful Objection: The Possibility Premise Is Question-Begging or Symmetrical<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This comes from philosophers like <strong>Graham Oppy<\/strong>, <strong>Michael Tooley<\/strong>, and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> The Objection:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Plantinga&#8217;s argument depends on the assumption that &#8220;a maximally great being is <em>possibly<\/em> instantiated.&#8221; But:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Possibility cuts both ways.<\/strong> If it&#8217;s possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists.<br>But if it&#8217;s possible that a maximally great being <em>does not<\/em> exist, then it <em>necessarily<\/em> does not exist (because necessary existence and nonexistence are modal opposites).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore, one could simply <em>mirror<\/em> the argument:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It is possible that a maximally great being does <strong>not<\/strong> exist.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If it is possible, then it does not exist in some possible world.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If it does not exist in some possible world, it does not exist in any possible world.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>This shows that the argument <strong>doesn\u2019t prove God\u2019s existence<\/strong>, but <strong>rests entirely on which modal intuition<\/strong> (possibility or impossibility) you accept at the start. So it becomes <strong>a battle of intuitions<\/strong>, not a logical proof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Graham Oppy&#8217;s Critique (Summarized)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Oppy has argued that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Modal Ontological Argument is <strong>logically valid<\/strong> but <strong>dialectically ineffective<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It <strong>presupposes<\/strong> a controversial modal claim (that the existence of a maximally great being is <em>possible<\/em>) that opponents do not grant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hence, <strong>no one who doubts the conclusion should accept the first premise<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Supporting Concepts from Modal Logic<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In modal logic S5 (which Plantinga uses), if something is <em>possibly necessary<\/em>, then it is <em>necessary<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>That\u2019s powerful, but it also means <strong>you only need to reject the &#8220;possible&#8221; part<\/strong> of the first premise to avoid the conclusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Summary: Best Argument Against<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>The Modal Ontological Argument is question-begging<\/strong>: it front-loads its conclusion into its first premise by asserting that God\u2019s existence is <em>possibly necessary<\/em>. But this is not a neutral or uncontroversial claim\u2014it\u2019s just as easy to assert the opposite. So the argument lacks persuasive power unless one already accepts its modal assumptions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p>Would you like to also examine criticisms of Plantinga&#8217;s <strong>Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism<\/strong>? It&#8217;s another area where rich counterarguments exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">You said:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>what about the objection that existence is not a property e.g. Kant, broad<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ChatGPT said:<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Excellent\u2014yes, the <strong>&#8220;existence is not a property&#8221;<\/strong> objection is a deep and important one, and it directly targets <strong>ontological arguments<\/strong> in general, including Plantinga&#8217;s. This critique is often traced to <strong>Immanuel Kant<\/strong>, and it was later refined by philosophers like <strong>C.D. Broad<\/strong> and <strong>J.N. Findlay<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\u2019s explore that objection carefully in the context of <strong>Plantinga\u2019s Modal Ontological Argument (MOA).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Recap: Plantinga\u2019s MOA in Brief<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Plantinga doesn\u2019t argue that <strong>existence<\/strong> is a property in the same way Descartes or Anselm might have. Instead, he argues that <strong>necessary existence<\/strong> is a <strong>great-making property<\/strong>, and a <strong>maximally great being<\/strong> is one that has <strong>necessary existence<\/strong> (exists in all possible worlds).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So he isn&#8217;t quite saying, \u201cGod exists, therefore God exists\u201d\u2014he\u2019s saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cIf it is possible that a necessarily existent being exists, then it exists in all possible worlds (including this one).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Kant\u2019s Objection: Existence Is Not a Real Predicate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> The Classic Objection<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Kant argued that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>Existence is not a real predicate<\/strong>\u2014it doesn\u2019t add anything to the concept of a thing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>For example, the concept of &#8220;100 real dollars&#8221; does not contain more <strong>content<\/strong> than the concept of &#8220;100 imaginary dollars.&#8221; The <strong>existence<\/strong> of the dollars doesn\u2019t enhance their <strong>conceptual attributes<\/strong>; it just places them in reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Applied to God:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Saying \u201ca maximally great being exists\u201d doesn\u2019t <strong>add<\/strong> to the greatness. It just asserts that the concept is instantiated. So <strong>existence cannot be a \u201cgreat-making\u201d property<\/strong>, which undermines the key move in Plantinga\u2019s logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> C.D. Broad&#8217;s Version: The Trouble With Necessary Existence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Broad (and also Findlay) adapted Kant\u2019s idea in modal terms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>Necessary existence is not a property in the same way as omniscience or omnipotence.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>To say a being exists <strong>necessarily<\/strong> is to <strong>quantify over possible worlds<\/strong>, not to add a feature to the being itself. But this treats necessity as <strong>semantic<\/strong> or <strong>logical<\/strong>, not as an ontological &#8220;greatness.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So if existence\u2014especially <strong>necessary existence<\/strong>\u2014is not a <strong>real, positive property<\/strong>, then the definition of a \u201cmaximally great being\u201d becomes suspect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Why This Matters to Plantinga<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Plantinga\u2019s whole argument hinges on defining God as a <strong>necessarily existent maximally great being<\/strong>. If:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Existence isn&#8217;t a property (Kant), and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Necessary existence isn\u2019t a genuine &#8220;great-making&#8221; feature (Broad),<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>then the concept of a \u201cmaximally great being\u201d may be <strong>logically coherent but metaphysically empty<\/strong>\u2014you can define it, but that doesn\u2019t mean it corresponds to anything real.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This <strong>blunts the force<\/strong> of the Modal Ontological Argument because it shows the concept of &#8220;maximal greatness&#8221; may be built on questionable metaphysical assumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Summary: The &#8220;Existence Is Not a Property&#8221; Objection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Objection<\/th><th>Implication for Plantinga<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Existence is not a real predicate<\/strong> (Kant)<\/td><td>Undermines the idea that necessary existence is a &#8220;great-making&#8221; property.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Necessary existence is not a metaphysical quality<\/strong> (Broad, Findlay)<\/td><td>Challenges the coherence of the &#8220;maximally great being&#8221; concept.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/td><td>Even if logically valid, the MOA may rest on flawed assumptions about what it means to &#8220;exist&#8221; necessarily.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p>Would you like a comparison between this objection and the &#8220;symmetry&#8221; objection (the one about modal intuitions cutting both ways)? They target different aspects of the argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Get smarter responses, upload files and images, and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Log in<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sign up for freeAttach<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Search<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>instead of arguing independently, why don;t we find the best arguments in the literature ChatGPT said: That&#8217;s a smart and constructive approach. Instead of reinventing the wheel or debating in circles, drawing from the best arguments in the literature\u2014whether academic, philosophical, legal, scientific, or otherwise\u2014can: If you let me know the topic or question you&#8217;re &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2025\/07\/01\/best-arguments\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Best Arguments&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60,61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ai-assist","category-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5150"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5150\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5151,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5150\/revisions\/5151"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}