From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 16:16:03 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### I wonder how I should call myself - as a modal realist I do believe in
> the actual existence of everything, including God (Jehovah, Allah, and
> absolutely every deity ever invented or not invented), but I think they are
> all pretty far away from here, ever farther away than my nearest
> atom-perfect copy in this level I Tegmark universe. So for all practical
> purposes I am an atheist, because gods, AFAIK, are too far away to matter.
> But in theory I am a theist, a polytheist, or even a maxitheist.
>
> So maybe I am an alltheist.
You are a theist about this world, as well as all the others. Alvin
Plantinga is famous for this somewhat surprising enhancement to Anselm's
ontological argument. The argument is as follows: presume that you are a
"modal realist:" a believer in the idea that there are entities called
possible worlds, within at least one of which all possibilities are
actual(ized).
Well, we can define "God" to be an entity with maximal "greatness", which
is plausibly defined as a being which is morally perfect and "necessary":
existing in all possible worlds. Or none at all. (Other candidates for
"necessary" entities might be the empty set, the number 1, and the
geometric point.) Well, in that case, "God" exists in all possible worlds,
or none at all. [Do not omit the scare quotes in this argument; its
unusual definition is the whole key to getting it off the ground.]
Since you say that "God" exists in some possible world, you are therefore
forced to conclude that "God" exists in all possible words, including, of
course, this one!
Of course, if you think that there is ANY possible world in which "God"
doesn't exist, you are similarly forced to accept that "God" exists in no
possible worlds at all!
While not even Plantinga thinks that the argument is a good proof, or
even very convincing, it does serve to galvanize the debate: either "God"
exists necessarily, in all possible words, or "God" necessarily *doesn't*
exist in ANY possible worlds.
I encourage you to read more about this here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#7
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 16:26:09 MDT