Plantinga's Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence

                                                       

                                                       (Pond, at Monroe County Community College)

In my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes I taught Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence, and modal version of the Ontological Argument. Here is Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument for God's existence. It is a real head-twister! 

Using modal logic, the following is true: If a necessary being is possible then a necessary being exists. (Think about it, modally.)

Or:

1. There is a possible world in which a necessarily existing being exists.
2. Therefore, a necessarily existing being exists.

Note: This argument avoids the Kantian criticism that 'exists' is not a predicate.

PLANTINGA’S MODAL VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE


The argument goes:

1.    It is possible that there is a being (B) that has maximal greatness.

2.    So, there is a possible being that in some world W has maximal greatness.

3.    A being has maximal greatness in a given world only if it has maximal excellence in every world.

4.    A being has maximal excellence in a given world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in that world.

5.    Therefore, “there actually exists a being (B) that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, exists and has these qualities in every other world as well.”

Needed to understand this argument:

Logical possibilities and impossibilities do not vary from world to world. If a given proposition or state of affairs is impossible in at least one possible world, then it is impossible in every possible world. For example, "square circles" are logical impossibilities in our world. Therefore they are logical impossibilities in every possible world. There is no possible world, no creatively invented world, that could contain a square circle.

• There are no propositions that are in fact impossible but could have been possible. For example, square circles could not exist in any conceivable/possible world.
• And, there are no propositions that in fact are possible but could have been impossible. For example, if there is a possible world in which SpongeBob exists, then there is no possible world in which SpongeBob could not exist.
• Therefore, B's nonexistence is impossible in every possible world. And because B is a maximally great Being, B exists in every possible world.
• Therefore B’s nonexistence is impossible in this world (since this world is a possible world).
• Therefore B exists and exists necessarily.

***

Plantinga's Modal Version Of the Ontological Argument (From Graham Oppy)

(Warren Dunes State Park, Michigan)

Graham Oppy presents Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument as follows.

An entity is "maximally great" iff (if and only if) it necessarily exists and possesses "maximal excellence" (i.e., is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect).

Keeping this in mind, note that a maximally great entity cannot be a contingent thing. As regards contingent things, it is possible that a certain contingent thing exists. E.g., it is possible that a unicorn exists (logically possible).

Therefore, regarding a maximally great thing:

1) Either it is not possible that a maximally great entity exists or it is necessary that a maximally great entity exists.

2) It is (logically) possible that a maximally great entity exists.

3) Therefore a maximally great entity exists. (That is, an entity that is omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, and possesses these attributes (i.e. is "maximally excellent") in every possible world.)

Oppy frames it this way.

1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Oppy writes: "Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p."

Note:

1) it is possible that it is necessary that p.

2) Either p cannot possibly exist or p necessarily exists.

3) Therefore (from P1 & P2, using disjunctive syllogism) p necessarily exists.

Oppy's essay on the Ontological Argument in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good one. He goes on to offer criticisms of Plantinga's version. And gives Plantinga's further reflections on the status of the argument.

***

The Modal Ontological Argument According to Plantinga

(Sterling State Park)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article by Kenneth Himma is good on explaining the Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence.. Here is Plantinga's OA for God's existence, via Himma.

Plantinga defines two properties: "maximal excellence" and "maximal greatness."

P1. A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W.

P2. A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

"Thus, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world: since a being that is maximally great at W is omnipotent at every possible world and non-existent beings can't be omnipotent, it follows that a maximally great being exists in every logically possible world." If, then, a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world, to include our actual world.

Is it logically possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world? Plantinga thinks so. To think this is not possible one would have to show that the concept of "maximally great being" is logically contradictory, like "square circle." Therefore, the concept of a "maximally great being" is logically possible; i.e., possibly instantiated. It follows, therefore, that a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every possible world.

Himma now formulates Plantinga' argument as follows:

1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.

2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every logically possible world.

As P2 affirms, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world. If it is possible that such a being exists in one possible world, then it exists in every possible world. Since our world is a possible world, God exists in our world.

See Himma's entire essay for more, including objections.

Covenant

 

                                                                            (In Israel)

I'm now reading Old Testament scholar John Walton's book Covenant: God's Purpose, God's Plan. Anyone desiring to take a very deep dive into the nature and purpose of biblical "covenant" would do well to begin here. It's hard to imagine anyone who knows more than Walton about this subject.

Here's a juicy quote from my readings today.

"Christ as the new Torah fulfills the covenantal Torah in the sense that he carries out all that the former was ever meant to be... 

Christ is the new Torah within the new covenant...

In Christ, the covenant relationship is redefined, but the basic thrust of the covenant has not changed. Now the character of God is revealed not through legislative examples of how a godly person will act, but by God’s Son who came and lived among us. The map has been replaced by a guide. That does not make the map wrong, but a guide makes a map unnecessary."

(Pp. 176-177)

Not Trying to Convert Anyone

                                                             (Happy birthday, Dennis!)

"I have never converted anybody. 

Only Christ can change the course of a man’s life" 

Billy Graham

In my praying time this afternoon I found myself pondering my life, so far, up to the present moment. As I get older I am doing that more and more.

The thought comes to me that I am not trying to convert people to the good news of Jesus. But I am, with the best of whatever I have become, trying to present the good news to others with clarity, depth, and personal testimony. 

Trying to change people's hearts is mostly, if not entirely, undoable. But I can present the lure to the fish, and leave the results to the Lord of the harvest. I can fish. I can invite. I can't force the fish to take the bait. I can lead a fish to the hook, but I can't make them bite.

When, fifty-five years ago, the Holy Spirit came upon me, I became a convert and a witness for Jesus. I desire people to be found by Christ, as I have been found. I can witness to this greatest event in my life. Then, I can leave the converting to God.

Hell Inspires the Abusive Tongue

 

  (Lake Erie)

James 3:3-12 is about an out-of-control mouth that ruins Jesus-communities with untruths. In James, one of the problems is antinomianism; viz., the misguided idea that one can have faith without obedience to Christ. This is why James stresses that faith without deeds is dead. Our hearts and mouths are to be obedient to the ways of Jesus. 

James understands the power of words. He knows that such a small (micro) thing as the mouth can have mega-effects (megala) vastly disproportionate to its size. 

The tongue, writes James, is a fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. Divisive untruths, gossip, slander, flattery, and a critical spirit are rooted in evil.  (Slander is saying something behind a person's back that you would never say to their face; flattery is saying something to a person's face that you would never say behind their back.)

New Testament scholar Scot McKnight writes, "Hell inspires the abusive tongue." (McKnight, James, 286) Words that tear down rather than build up, words of hatred rather than love, words showing favoritism of one person over another, all rise out of a heart in touch with hell.

Why such strong language? After all, doesn't the old proverb apply here? "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." To the contrary, "Far easier to heal are the wounds caused by sticks and stones than the damage caused by words." (Moo, in McKnight, James, 286)

James ramps up the intensity when he writes: "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness." 

For James this is crazy, because it means blessing a person with your words, and then cursing the same person with your words. "Cursing” is a failure to see in one another God’s image. (David Nystrom, James) This is why James adds, "who have been made in God's likeness." 

If you curse a person you are cursing God’s image in that person. Thus, we have the contradiction:

1. I praise God.

2. I curse God (via cursing people who are made in the image of God).

This is the incongruous "double-mindedness" James warns about. He is addressing Christians who praise God with their mouths on Sunday mornings, and on Sunday afternoons brutalize people on social media. Or in their homes. 

Cursing is tearing down the image of God in other people. N. T. Wright writes that if "someone turns out to be pouring out curses – cursing other humans who are made in God’s likeness – then one must at least question whether their heart has been properly cleansed, rinsed by God’s powerful spirit. And if that isn’t the case, that person is getting their real inspiration from hell itself." 

How can our mouth be healed of its abusive ways? The answer for James, and his biological brother Jesus, is by focusing on the mouth's source, which is the heart. To rescue your mouth, focus on your heart. Let your heart align with the heart of Jesus. If your heart is pure, your words will be pure. Nystrom writes:

“Jesus understood actions to be revelatory of character, as the saying “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit” attests. He also believed our speech to be revelatory of character, which is the essential point being made here. Our speech comes from the heart.”

So what can we do? I like how Oswald Chambers directs us. He writes:

"Jesus says that there is only one way to develop spiritually, and that is by concentration on God. “Do not bother about being of use to others; believe on Me” [ pay attention to the Source], “and out of you will flow rivers of living water. We cannot get at the springs of our natural life by common sense, and Jesus is teaching that growth in spiritual life does not depend on our watching it, but on concentration on our Father in heaven. Our heavenly Father knows the circumstances we are in, and if we keep concentrated on Him we will grow spiritually as the lilies."

The message of James 3:3-12 is that, while humanity has failed to tame the human tongue, God can tame our mouth, as we abide in him.

***

My books are:

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

31 Letters to the Church on Praying

Encounters with the Holy Spirit (co-edited with Janice Trigg)

***

Anyone remember this?

5 Guidelines for Civil Discourse

Flicker, in my back yard

I'm re-posting this to keep it in play. We who are followers of Jesus need to be reminded of these things, right? I know I do.

This is about how someone who claims to follow Jesus should conduct themselves, in any medium, in all human interaction.

Guidelines for Civil Discourse

#1 - Love People

If you are a follower of Jesus, this is for us. 

Though the world fails in civility, we must engage in civil discourse.

Our foundation for civil discourse is love. We are to love others, in our behaviors. With the love of God, exemplified in Jesus. We must love like Jesus loves.

This includes those who disagree with us. It encompasses our enemies. They are among our "neighbors."

Love is the sign, the mark, that we are what we declare we are; viz., Christians. If we don't love, we have nothing. (See 1 Corinthians 13) If we don't love, we don't have our identity, at least in the eyes of others. People don't care how much we know until they know how much we care.

Jesus affirms the call to love in John 13:34-35:

“A new command I give you: 

Love one another. 

As I have loved you, 

so you must love one another. 

By this everyone will know 

that you are my disciples, 

if you love one another.”

People will know that you and I are with Jesus as we love one another. If we fail to do this, we will be far from Jesus. Others will think of Jesus through the lens of our rudeness and incivility.

When Christians hate one another on social media, they fail to display what is supposed to be their distinguishing mark; viz., love. When we get disgusted, show irritation, demean, mock, slander, ridicule, or bully, we dishonor people made in God's image. And bring shame upon our Lord.

Francis Schaeffer, in his classic The Mark of the Christian, writes:

"We are to love our fellowmen, to love all men, in fact, as neighbors. 

All men bear the image of God. They have value, not because they are redeemed, but because they are God’s creation in God’s image. Modern man, who has rejected this, has no clue as to who he is, and because of this he can find no real value for himself or for other men. Hence, he downgrades the value of other men and produces the horrible thing we face today—a sick culture in which men treat men as inhuman, as machines. As Christians, however, we know the value of men. 

All men are our neighbors, and we are to love them as ourselves. We are to do this on the basis of creation, even if they are not redeemed, for all men have value because they are made in the image of God. Therefore they are to be loved even at great cost." (Schaeffer, pp. 15-16)

It is clear, is it not, that in all our discourse with people we are to love them. This is the higher ground, where Jesus was suspended on a cross.

#2 - Never Mock People

Followers of Jesus are never to mock or ridicule other people.

Never. Ever. 

Mockery and ridicule are opponents of agape love. They reside in the camp of conditional love. ("If you agreed with my position, then I would not show my disgust towards you.")

Every person is made in the imago dei, the image of God. To mock and ridicule a person, no matter who they are or what they believe or disbelieve, is to mock that person's Maker. If you mock someone's children, you also mock them. This is how it is in tribal communities.

Slow-cook in the book of Proverbs and apply.

How long will you who are simple 

love your simple ways? 

How long will mockers delight in mockery 

and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 1:22

He mocks proud mockers 

but shows favor to the humble and oppressed.

Proverbs 3:34

If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; 

if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.

Proverbs 9:12

The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, 

but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

Proverbs 14:6

Penalties are prepared for mockers, 

and beatings for the backs of fools.

Proverbs 19:29

The proud and arrogant person

—“Mocker” is his name— 

behaves with insolent fury.

Proverbs 21:24

Drive out the mocker, and out goes strife; 

quarrels and insults are ended.

Proverbs 22:10

Mockers stir up a city, 

but the wise turn away anger.

Proverbs 29:8

How shall we live the command to love our neighbor? By mocking them?

How shall we give witness to the sign that we belong to Jesus? By mocking one another?

How shall we be blessed as peacemakers? By ridiculing those who disagree with us?

Is mockery among the fruit of the Spirit?

Shall we build up the body of Christ using the spiritual gift of ridicule?

Is not any fellowship with the company of mockers called wickedness? (Psalm 1:1)

To mock and ridicule others that do not think like you is non-redemptive, only causing existing divisions to separate further. 

(In logic, mockery and ridicule are types of informal fallacies, called ad hominem abusives. To verbally abuse someone not only adds nothing to an argument, it diminishes the argument.)

#3 - The Other Is Not Your Enemy

The apostle Paul writes:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, 

but against the rulers, 

against the authorities, 

against the powers of this dark world 

and against the spiritual forces of evil 

in the heavenly realms.

Ephesians 6:12

So, if it has flesh and blood, it is not our real enemy.

Our real enemies are "the powers of this dark world" and the "spiritual forces of evil." These are the spiritual forces Jesus came to defeat.

Jesus did not come to defeat people. He came to rescue them. In the rescue, the powers of darkness are defeated.

If you are a follower of Jesus you must not demonize others. Even if they anger you. To do that is to wrestle with the wrong adversaries. 

Discuss? Yes. Agree, or disagree? Of course. Wrestle with? That would be like leaving your true opponent on the wrestling mat and climbing into the bleachers and trying to pin the captive onlookers.

If we view and treat one another as enemies, we are engaged in vain warfare.

If an army starts to shoot its own, waging war within itself, this is not only a pseudo-battle, it's going to lead to defeat by the real enemy. If the actual enemy can get us to self-destroy,  it has won.

You and I are not enemies, because we are flesh and blood. If something has flesh and blood it cannot be our enemy.

Sadly, Christians can be tempted, deceived, and even used by the dark powers. (see Eph. 2:2; 4:14) As Ben Witherington writes: “It is all too easy to mistake the human vessel of evil for evil itself.” Pray that we never make that mistake, for if we do the days of hating and hurting and hiding from one another have arrived.

Our struggle is essentially a spiritual one. 

Wage war on that level.

Wage peace with one another.

#4 - Never Insult a Brother or Sister

When Linda and I were campus pastors at Michigan State University, we were teaching Matthew 5:21-24 to our students. In the midst of the discussion, one of our students, Naomi, who was from Malawi, said: "If we followed the words of Jesus here very few of us would be worshiping today. We would all get up and leave, go to the brothers and sisters we were demeaning, and ask for forgiveness."

²¹ “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, 

and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 

²² But I tell you that anyone who is angry 

with a brother or sister 

will be subject to judgment. 

Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 

‘Raca,’ 

is answerable to the court. 

And anyone who says, ‘

You fool!’ 

will be in danger of the fire of hell.

²³ “Therefore, 

if you are offering your gift at the altar 

and there remember 

that your brother or sister 

has something against you,

²⁴ leave your gift there in front of the altar. 

First go 

and be reconciled to them; 

then come and offer your gift.

"Raca" is an Aramaic term of abuse. It means "idiot." (See R.T. France,The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 120)

Anyone who calls a brother or sister in Christ an idiot is answerable to the Sanhedrin. (Greek synedrion.) France writes: "Jesus here threatens ultimate divine judgment on anger, even as expressed in everyday insults." (Ib.) 

If I call someone an idiot am I really relegated to the garbage heap where Israel's rubbish was burned? No. Jesus is using exaggeration, as he often does, to make a point. (This is called Semitic hyperbole.) But the point is important. This is "an injunction to submit our thoughts about other people, as well as the words they give rise to, to God's penetrating scrutiny... We cannot worship God with grudges unsettled."

Anger is no excuse for insulting people. It is non-redemptive and alienating.

If you are a Jesus-follower, and you ridicule a brother or sister, your worship is inauthentic, and unacceptable to God.

#5 - Fear Speaking Badly of Others Made in God's Image

Have you ever met a Christian who never spoke badly of another person? I have met a few.

Apparently, Bill Johnson is one of those. Thank you, C.H., for posting this.

"In a recent meeting, someone said to Bill Johnson, "I notice that you never talk about people. You never talk badly about people. And I'm just wondering what's going on in your heart? How did you discipline yourself to NEVER speak negatively of other people, even people who are sometimes a pain?"

Bill, with tears running down his cheeks, said, "I fear Jesus in them. That I would speak badly about someone made in the image of God, that is so valued by God that Jesus died for them. And that I would portray them as something less valuable than that. I fear how God would deal with a person who would betray the people made in his image."

AND...

Let your conversation be always full of grace, 

seasoned with salt, 

so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Colossians 4:6

***

My books are...

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Encounters with the Holy Spirit (co-edited with Janice Trigg)

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

The Great Invasion: Thirty-One Days of Christmas

31 Letters to the Church on Praying