I remember you. I remember that you were a friend, you were someone I liked, My memory of specifics, when I knew you and what you said, very hazy. I did remember the name.Speusippus wrote:Hello Metacrock, this is "anonymous" from your blog.
I used to be known as Dag Hammarskjold on CARM. (I no longer post there, though I do have an account under the name "Speusippus" over there as well.)
I can see why you feeling confident to say that the greats are arguing badly but it come across well. I don't think anyone can say that Plantinga, Harsthorne and Malcom are not greats. They are authorizes and brilliant thinkers. Of cousre that doesn't' make them right. Pltinga is humble. He never says "O that guy is stupid." even when I tell him arguments that I consider to be stupid he answers them with no fan fare and no commentary on the arguers intelligence. Something I need to learn.I am a Philosopher (as in, by profession*) and a Christian. But being a philosopher, I tend to focus more on arguments than on conclusions, so even though I do believe in God, I will typically argue against the soundness of any arguments for the existence of God that I see. (Similarly, if I'm participating in a conversation with Atheists and they are arguing against God's existence, I will typically try to argue against that as well--though I have to admit I find my own disposition to be more "prophetic" than "evangelical," by which I mean, I'm more likely to think it worthwhile and rewarding for all concerned to correct Christians when I think they're arguing badly than to correct Atheists when they are arguing badly. This is not to say I take that as a general rule everyone should follow--it's just the disposition I find myself saddled with.
*That's not to say I'm a very good philosopher. Professionally speaking, I'm not--I have no publications and I almost never do research due to a complex of laziness, fear and despair. Let's just say I concentrate on my teaching.
that doesn't mean you are not good.
This post is a continuation of one thread of our conversation from your blog.
Ok but remember I said there are two kinds of necessity involved.It is commonly taken as definitional concerning the term "God" that God be a necessary being. I won't dispute that. What I dispute is that this implies that God is logically necessary.
even though I violate it on CARM, because it would confuses issues, I agree with Tillich that God does not "exist" pre se but that is not the same as saying "there is no God." Therefore, I don't say "God exists." I avoid saying it as much as possible.In fact, I won't even dispute that God is logically necessary. Rather, I will make the point that there is no such thing as logical necessity simpliciter. There are many systems of logic, and what is "logically necessary" will vary from system to system. If you're using a logical system which is inadequate to handle statements about God's existence, then even if God is actually necessary, nevertheless the statement "god exists", as interpreted in that logical system, may well turn out to be logically contingent.
On your blog, you presented an argument from Hartshorne which ends with the conclusion "God exists." You also said that this argument wasn't meant to be a proof but part of a larger project involving showing that there is rational warrant for belief in God's existence. That may well be, but what I have in front of me is an argument written in the language of propositional modal logic, which starts from premises and leads by valid steps (valid in propositional modal logic) to a conclusion. Seeing this, it is impossible for me not to understand this as a proof of the conclusion. It fits the definition of proof perfectly. The author's intention in writing it is almost irrelevant--what they've written, whether they like it or not, is definitely a proof. (And I doubt Hartshorne is unaware of this of course!) And since it's a proof, it's impossible for me not to evaluate it by assessing its validity (it's valid) and the truth of its premises.
He definitely presented it in the form of a proof. He did say he thought it didn't prove it, at least not by itself. It's part of a larger system. That is in a book by Hartshorne that I read several years ago. Plantinga said independently of that in email to me that he doesn't argue that it proves but that it's a good reaosn to believe. Even though it's pretended in the form of a proof both men were aware that there's more to it than that. My own presentations I always say up front I don't argue to prove the existence of God but offer rational warrant for belief.