tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post4664865964472166594..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Contending with Christianity's CriticsRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-4663085678936818552014-01-14T22:20:34.146-05:002014-01-14T22:20:34.146-05:00Yes, I think you can. I think this is also where d...Yes, I think you can. I think this is also where different types of moral arguments can come into play. For instance, if our moral argument is only that God is the being responsible for why we have a sense of moral values, then yes, it doesn't follow from that that God is all-good. However, if our moral argument argues for God as the ground or source of objective moral values, then he must be omnibenevolent. If he is the source, then he is identical to the good (the solution to the Euthyphro), and in that case good is not not-good (or evil), and then it follows that God is all-good. I also think there is a case to be made from the idea of obligations. It seems plausible (though this idea needs work) that we only owe obligations to persons who are the law. In moral terms, then, we only owe moral duties to that perfect standard of goodness, which is God. We don't owe them to lesser beings, even though we owe certain attitudes and behaviors towards persons, these are secondary obligations (i.e., you must do X; Y is an instantiation of X; you must do Y). Anyway, I just think it's plausible that moral obligations indicate a perfect standard that is a person. :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-39005412269588329402014-01-14T18:44:16.982-05:002014-01-14T18:44:16.982-05:00OK, thanks. One last thing: in regards to an attri...OK, thanks. One last thing: in regards to an attribute like omnibenevolence, apart from using the maximally-great being concept or appealing to Scripture, could you use the Moral Argument to show the creator has this attribute? I've heard some people say you can, but I can't quite see why myself, for although I can understand us thinking the creator must be (at the least) a good being if He has implanted moral values in our minds/conscience, how does it follow from that alone that He is all-good rather than just mostly-good?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-9319203912542737002014-01-14T08:55:24.920-05:002014-01-14T08:55:24.920-05:00It is the exploration of the concept with the conc...It is the exploration of the concept with the concept of possible worlds, yes. But what I am saying is that you don't have to discuss the concept of possible worlds in order to argue for omniscience. Say that someone disagrees necessary existence is possible, for example, but would want to affirm God is the greatest possible being (for whatever reason). They could then accept the argument that God is omniscient/omnipotent/whatnot without being saddled with that belief (even though I think it is entailed by being maximally great). :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-2070092263031442052014-01-13T22:20:59.396-05:002014-01-13T22:20:59.396-05:00Ah, OK, maybe I've misunderstood the Ontologic...Ah, OK, maybe I've misunderstood the Ontological argument slightly then?.I thought it was the joining together of the concept of a maximally-great being with the language/concept of possible worlds, which then get us to this being actually existing. But you seem to be saying the maximally-great being concept is just part of the Ontological argument. Is that right? Or am I misreading you?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-12565719284433833072014-01-13T21:12:11.298-05:002014-01-13T21:12:11.298-05:00Hi James. Well, you don't have to appeal to th...Hi James. Well, you don't have to appeal to the ontological argument as a whole, but merely the concept of the maximally-great being, which entails these things. There may be room for other arguments, like the best explanation of power is an ultimate source of power, which is then in turn all-powerful, and this is best explained by God; or knowledge indicates truth, and there is an objective ground to all truth, and plausibly this ground of truth would know all truth as he knows himself, and the best explanation is God--these are starters, but would need to be seriously developed.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-72180887989736086772014-01-12T16:40:02.587-05:002014-01-12T16:40:02.587-05:00Hi Randy,
Not to take this off-topic, but in rela...Hi Randy,<br /><br />Not to take this off-topic, but in relation to attributes like omniscience and omnipotence which were mentioned near the start of your review, how do we prove that a creator is endowed with those? I can only think of two ways myself: 1) Appeal to the Ontological argument; 2) Appeal to Scripture. Just wondering if you know of any other arguments that can be used?Jamesnoreply@blogger.com