What is your answer?
Anselm's assumption (that God exists in the understanding but not in reality) treats God as a possible being who is later shown to exist in reality. Plantinga thinks an ontology of possible beings is objectionable. But he claims that he can patch up the argument by
{ 1 } - speaking of it being possible (true in some possible world) that there is some being with an unsurpassible degree of greatness.
{ 2 } - speaking of the human mind and its ability to conceive of possible beings that have never existed.
{ 3 } - using fictional and mythological entities, like Sherlock Holmes and Santa Clause.
{ 4 } - speaking of the possible being with all positive properties (properties that are better to have than not to have).
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is correct!
Anselm's assumption (that God exists in the understanding but not in reality) treats God as a possible being who is later shown to exist in reality. Plantinga thinks an ontology of possible beings is objectionable. But he claims that he can patch up the argument by
{ 1 } - speaking of it being possible (true in some possible world) that there is some being with an unsurpassible degree of greatness.
{ 2 } - speaking of the human mind and its ability to conceive of possible beings that have never existed.
{ 3 } - using fictional and mythological entities, like Sherlock Holmes and Santa Clause.
{ 4 } - speaking of the possible being with all positive properties (properties that are better to have than not to have).
This new phrasing doesn't involve a questionable ontology of "possible beings."
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Anselm's assumption (that God exists in the understanding but not in reality) treats God as a possible being who is later shown to exist in reality. Plantinga thinks an ontology of possible beings is objectionable. But he claims that he can patch up the argument by
{ 1 } - speaking of it being possible (true in some possible world) that there is some being with an unsurpassible degree of greatness.
{ 2 } - speaking of the human mind and its ability to conceive of possible beings that have never existed.
{ 3 } - using fictional and mythological entities, like Sherlock Holmes and Santa Clause.
{ 4 } - speaking of the possible being with all positive properties (properties that are better to have than not to have).
This involves possible beings, and so wouldn't avoid the objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Anselm's assumption (that God exists in the understanding but not in reality) treats God as a possible being who is later shown to exist in reality. Plantinga thinks an ontology of possible beings is objectionable. But he claims that he can patch up the argument by
{ 1 } - speaking of it being possible (true in some possible world) that there is some being with an unsurpassible degree of greatness.
{ 2 } - speaking of the human mind and its ability to conceive of possible beings that have never existed.
{ 3 } - using fictional and mythological entities, like Sherlock Holmes and Santa Clause.
{ 4 } - speaking of the possible being with all positive properties (properties that are better to have than not to have).
This involves possible beings, and so wouldn't avoid the objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Anselm's assumption (that God exists in the understanding but not in reality) treats God as a possible being who is later shown to exist in reality. Plantinga thinks an ontology of possible beings is objectionable. But he claims that he can patch up the argument by
{ 1 } - speaking of it being possible (true in some possible world) that there is some being with an unsurpassible degree of greatness.
{ 2 } - speaking of the human mind and its ability to conceive of possible beings that have never existed.
{ 3 } - using fictional and mythological entities, like Sherlock Holmes and Santa Clause.
{ 4 } - speaking of the possible being with all positive properties (properties that are better to have than not to have).
This involves possible beings, and so wouldn't avoid the objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end