Plantinga’s Ontological Argument Simplified

Introduction: Understanding Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument for Existence of God

Answering 7 Objections Rose Against It

Is Ontological Argument For Existence of God Question Begging?

Question: What is your objection against Plantinga’s ontological argument?

Youtubecredit: InspiringPhilosophy

About these ads

About Prayson Daniel

Prayson Daniel is a Tanzanian, married to Lea and a father to Eloise. Reformed theology, philosophy of religion, apologetics and church history are areas he enjoy reading, pondering and sharing with a motto "when love comes first, disagreement follows at its right and proper place".

10 comments

  1. “….while an atheist does not have good reason to think God does not exist.”

    Okay, once again. god, not God. If you wish to use the term Yahweh or Jesus, fine. The term ‘God’ suggests a proper noun or a proper name, and in this context you re referring to a creator specifically from a Christian point of view.

    An atheist has EVERY reason to believe gods do not exist and this includes the man-god called Jesus, who’s erroneous resurrection account you deem the centre point of your faith.

    I truly wish you would have the integrity to acknowledge that there are many gods, and many faiths, and while each one claims they have respect for the others, each believes that their god is the only god, or the true god.

    Christianity is only special in the minds of its followers. And it really isn’t that special at all.

  2. Personally, I feel all the philosophical arguments have an inherent deficiency and will never change an unbelievers mind, especially the Ontological Argument, since it only rely’s on logic. Any deductive argument that is non-obvious and based solely on logic must have controversial premises, and is thus hard to accept whether valid or not.

    Reason and intellect attempt to prove God’s existence. But God is absolutely different and totally beyond our comprehension and beyond our language to describe. The qualities of God cannot be captured in the predicates of language. Pascal makes a similar point when making his wager.

    I love what you do dear Prayson, you validate the chosen and try to bring the lost to Grace but remember, when the unbeliever suppresses the truths -which God has made known to them- they have nowhere to turn, no foundation to rest their heads upon other than that which has already been laid by God (Rom. 1:18-20). In their suppression of the truth they display behaviors that betray their professed godless worldview as they utter moral judgments, laws of logic and rely on the scientific backbone of uniformity; that is to say they expect the laws of science to operate tomorrow like they do today yet have no accountability as to why they would when they attempt to oust the controlling influence (God) out of the paradigm (Gen. 8:22).
    There is no foundation for knowledge outside of God.

    “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., Materialism and Astronomy – are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” C.S. Lewis

    If this universe is the product of chance and the human mind is ultimately a by-product of that chance process then all reasoning and argumentation reduces down to being nothing more than arbitrary!

    So what’s left is the fact that all the philosophical arguments have an inherent deficiency because they are based on “controversial” premises. So what’s left after the failure of philosophical arguments? Truth. Truth survives. There is only one Truth, whether it is proven or not. Whether these great, but limited minds, convince anyone to come to God is debatable because the Ultimate truth exists outside of our current understanding of what “proof” entails.

    • That is why Alvin Plantinga said: “[T]he natural theologian does not, typically, offer his arguments in order to convince people of God’s existence; and in fact few who accept theistic belief do so because they find such an argument compelling. Instead the typical function of natural theology has been to show that religious belief is rationally acceptable.”

      Some atheists became theists from natural theology e.g. Antony Flew, C. S. Lewis et cetera. But the aim of natural theology is not to make an atheist theist but to show that a theist has good reason to think God exist, while an atheist does not have good reason to think God does not exist.

      • I will grant you there are some atheists who can care less what we believe but there are many, many more who hate us and God. They took God out of our public schools, they legalized the killing of babies, they legalized same-sex marriage, they want God out of our Pledge to Country and National Anthem, and they will not be happy until the belief in the God of our Bible and his Moral Laws are totally wiped out. I have the understanding that the atheists posting to your blog all think we are totally irrational for our belief and every philosophical argument fails. I also have an understanding that they have every reason to think God does not exist because they want non-anecdotal proof, which I addressed in your last post, that is, there is non-anecdotal proof.

        C.S. Lewis went on a soul-searching journey that ultimately brought him back to where he started, he never was an atheist. He said,

        “This God is rather beyond every concept, beyond theism, beyond supernaturalism, beyond the God of the Church and the gods of men and women. I experience this God, I do not explain this God.”

        Lewis said in his book, “Surprised By Joy,” that he maintained that God did not exist, was very angry with God for not existing and equally angry with Him for creating a world. This is not an atheist. I feel he was part of Gods elect all along and you cant escape, or deny Him, if it is His will you that you can’t.

        In regards to A. Flew, he was the son of a Methodist minister. He was 15 years old (Lewis was 14 and his mother a daughter of a Church of Ireland priest) when he concluded there was no God. According to Wiki, only the scientific forms of the teleological argument ultimately impressed Flew as decisive. In studying his life nowhere do I find him acknowledging Theism, but rather Deism, and nowhere do I find him believing Christ as Saviour.

        My view is that I have no idea why God does, or does not do, when it comes to us as individuals. Why some are elected and others not. Why some have a prayer answered and others not. Why it has to be yes, no, or not yet. Why it has to be some require “proof” and others have the “proof” living within them. The list goes on and that’s why I fall to my knees, with tears in my eyes, I thank God for loving me. After 51 years and much study, for myself, that is all I need to know, that is, that God loves me and I live and die at His command.

        You state, …”an atheist does not have good reason to think God does not exist”, in reference to logical arguments, but why? To defend the faith, the Christian must use truth, facts, and reason appropriately and prayerfully. I feel the proper use of logic in apologetics is to remove intellectual barriers that hinder a person from accepting Jesus as Savior. Logic has its limits. It cannot guarantee wisdom. It cannot prove or disprove inspiration or love. It cannot replace the intuition gained through experience, the prompting of the Holy Spirit, nor the clear truth of God’s word. The “true” atheist cannot make sense of the laws of logic because there is no rational justification for universal, immaterial, invariant entities in an atheistic universe. In particular, those atheists who hold to a materialistic philosophy cannot make sense of laws of logic because laws of logic are not material.

        Is logic enough for the Christian? No, it isn’t. Logic doesn’t save. Jesus does. We cannot reason someone into the kingdom of God. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin and righteousness and who opens the heart to understand the truth (John 16:8). Logic is a tool for the Christian. It is not the answer to the problem. As Christians, we need to use logic, as well as testimony, prayer, God’s word, love, kindness, etc., in our efforts to win people to Jesus. Reasoning has a valuable place in apologetics and with the believer. It is worth doing well. But use it with love, prayer, and a lot of patience.

        • Thank you Roy.

          I don’t think logical case for existence of God saves Roy. That is not the case. The case is can they be used to show that the belief in God is warranted. Yes.

          Paul, in books of Acts and in his letters, present logical arguments, that if there is no resurrection of the died, Jesus did not rise. He showed that Jesus rose, therefore there is resurrection of the died.

          Example, I find the logical case that Jesus rose from the dead, very persuasive as it present historical data and a best explanation of that data.

          Logic is simply correct way of thinking, Roy, to which God himself called his people to “Come now, let us reason together”(Isaiah 1:18)

          Yours,
          Prayson

  3. Peter B.

    Got to love the Ontological Argument. It’s probably my favorite, for the specific reason that I believe it forms the grounds for a meaningful apologetic. With any other argument for God’s existence, you get ever increasing probability that God exists, with the Ontological though, these probabilities are used to create a deductive case.
    The drawback(s) however remain. Most people laugh off the ontological argument as merely thinking things into existence, and as a stand alone argument, it doesn’t serve as much of a proof, but it does show that either God is absolutely necessarily existent, or he is logically impossible. That’s why I tend to use the ontological first, once you establish that dilemma, you can show through other arguments that there is a possibility, and even in some cases a probability that God does exist, and by the Ontological argument and modal logic, therefore must exist.

    Love these videos, Prayson. I came across them a few months ago and they have led me down a long line of research. It’s been a blast – thanks for the stimulating reminder!

  4. I’ll have to think through this one for a while Prayson!

  5. Reblogged this on fraserthings and commented:
    Defined and understood

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,839 other followers

%d bloggers like this: