Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Plantinga's modal ontological argument shows that S5-base... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→God's absolute necessity does not invoke the ontological argument.

    Plantinga's modal ontological argument shows that S5-based necessity and conceptual necessity collapse into the same inferential structure.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.S5 modal semantics treats possible worlds as equally accessible, making metaphysical necessity identical to conceivability across all models.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's maximal greatness concept requires logical equivalence between 'possibly necessary' and 'necessarily necessary' in S5 semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a property is conceptually coherent (God's omnipotence), S5 guarantees it holds in some possible world, collapsing conceptual into modal necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.S5's accessibility relation assumes logical possibility, but conceptual coherence and metaphysical possibility are distinct epistemic categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's argument requires that conceivability entails possibility, but this premise itself needs independent justification beyond S5 axioms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Critics (Oppy, Sobel) show the argument's success depends on prior theological assumptions, not on S5 semantics demonstrating their equivalence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Critics (Oppy, Sobel) show the argument's success depends on prior theological a...God's absolute necessity does not invoke the ontological argument.If a property is conceptually coherent (God's omnipotence), S5 guarantees it hol...Plantinga's argument requires that conceivability entails possibility, but this ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Plantinga's maximal greatness concept requires logical equivalence between 'poss...S5 modal semantics treats possible worlds as equally accessible, making metaphys...S5's accessibility relation assumes logical possibility, but conceptual coherenc...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit