|Tree, in my backyard|
I just finished watching the debate between Finnish physicist Kari Enqvist and William Lane Craig on "Can the Universe Exist Without God?" I really enjoyed this. I am Finnish, and the debate takes plac at the University of Helsinki. Enqvist, the debate moderator, and all the questioners speak English, but they have their deep Finnish accents that I recognize. My grandparents on both parents' sides came from Finland to America. So I felt a bond between myself and these Finnish professors and students.
Bill presented for reasons to answer "No" to the debate question. One of the reasons concerned Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument for God's existence. How interesting, to me, that Bill is using this argument! Here it is:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
A main virtue of this version of the OA is that it avoids Kant's criticism that "exists" is not a predicate or attribute.