What is your answer?
Plantinga endorses the "triumphant" version of the ontological argument given below. What does he see as the argument's weak link?
1. There's a possible world in which some being has maximal possible greatness.
2. Necessarily, if a being has maximal possible greatness then it has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
3. Therefore, there is a being that has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
{ 1 } - Premise 1.
{ 2 } - Premise 2.
{ 3 } - Neither -- he thinks both premises are clearly true.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is correct!
Plantinga endorses the "triumphant" version of the ontological argument given below. What does he see as the argument's weak link?
1. There's a possible world in which some being has maximal possible greatness.
2. Necessarily, if a being has maximal possible greatness then it has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
3. Therefore, there is a being that has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
{ 1 } - Premise 1.
{ 2 } - Premise 2.
{ 3 } - Neither -- he thinks both premises are clearly true.
Plantinga claims that this argument is valid and has true premises. He admits that some will find premise 1 controversial; so the argument isn't a conclusive proof. But still, the premises are reasonable, and so the argument shows the reasonableness of theism.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Plantinga endorses the "triumphant" version of the ontological argument given below. What does he see as the argument's weak link?
1. There's a possible world in which some being has maximal possible greatness.
2. Necessarily, if a being has maximal possible greatness then it has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
3. Therefore, there is a being that has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
{ 1 } - Premise 1.
{ 2 } - Premise 2.
{ 3 } - Neither -- he thinks both premises are clearly true.
He thinks that premise 2 is true because of the definition of "maximal possible greatness."
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Plantinga endorses the "triumphant" version of the ontological argument given below. What does he see as the argument's weak link?
1. There's a possible world in which some being has maximal possible greatness.
2. Necessarily, if a being has maximal possible greatness then it has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
3. Therefore, there is a being that has omniscence, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.
{ 1 } - Premise 1.
{ 2 } - Premise 2.
{ 3 } - Neither -- he thinks both premises are clearly true.
No, he thinks that one of the premises is controversial.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end