Alvin Plantinga - What are Possible Worlds? (Part 2)

[@KinemaReviews]

This man's voice is haunting...

[@GeorgWilde]

LMAO Exactly the same voice as the narration of the Darkest Dungeon: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWLck4aiZ8iSgJo&ab_channel=OverArch

[@samuelarthur887]

I guess, like he said, the key is accepting or rejecting the first premise: is it possible that there's such a being? Once you accept that, you are committed to the conclusion. So, the question is, is it possible?

[@PGBurgess]

"Is it possible there is a being that is necessary?" - yes: i can conceive of something that exists necessary. - no: i can conceive of a possible world that does not have such a being. But the first seems to lead back to what he said didn't work in Anselms way of putting it. you are conceiving of something that exists necessary. there is a direct contradiction between the two views, and it seems to me the second is the more logical statement.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

@@PGBurgess The kind of possibility this argument relies on isn't concievability though. It doesn't move from concievability to possibility to necessary actuality. It just asserts that there's no logical contradiction that occurs for the necessary being to exist in at least one world. Therefore, it's "possible" and the rest follows. Concievability isn't part of the argument, it's simply a reason to suppose that the first premise is true. Your concieving of a world that contradicts the first premise is a motivation to reject it. They don't contradict; they're both concievable, but one of them is concievable but impossible. Now we have to roll our sleeves up and figure out which one is which.

[@shadowofthenamelessking]

Do fictional worlds fall under possible worlds or are they completely separate?

[@magno1177]

​@@shadowofthenamelesskingPossible worlds are descriptions of how our world could have been, so there is a possible world where Harry Potter is real or where King Arthur and his entire mythical story are real.

[@michaelcummings8452]

Is it possible that inferior beings cannot fathom other possible worlds let alone possible beings.

[@Brynbraughton]

are you asking that question and not realizing your ability to logic your own ability to be unable to fathom what you fathom?

[@GGGames_93]

Why is the proposition "there is a being who exists in all possible worlds" is necessary in the possible world in which greatest possible being exists?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Are there any implications of necessity in possible world(s)? Do possible worlds come from necessity?

[@GeorgWilde]

This is essentially water tight argument against agnosticism. Either God is impossible, or actually and necessarily existing. Only objection left is whether the idea of a "world" and a "possible world" is a coherent one (how could you define a totality of all things, when in its very conceiving of it you would create a new thing - the definition).

[@farben_]

Possible world.... possible world... possible world

[@allgodsmyth7318]

Another problem with Plantinga's possible world argument is that his "omni" god exists _in_ these possible worlds, yet most theists would argue that the omni god must have started _outside_ and _before_ any possible worlds in order to create them. Plantiga's argument doesn't address this. Furthermore, there is nothing to limit just one being with omnipotence, omniscience, and is wholly good (whatever that might be given the sometimes nebulous, circumstantial understanding of "good"). Each possible world could have multiple omni gods separate and distinct from one another. (And what makes a being "necessary" to a world which, given the physical laws of that world, can remain a world self-sufficient without need of an omni being that's _in_ the world to keep the wheels turning?) Plantinga needs an "outside possible worlds" argument prior to addressing his modal "in possible worlds" argument if he wants to springboard to a creator god. Otherwise, his argument presupposes possible worlds create omni god(s) and not the other way around.

[@MrSlickJerk]

It doesn't mean the greatest possible being exists inside a physical world. I don't think you understand the meaning of possible world. As Plantinga explains in the beginning of the video, possible worlds represent everything that could have been. It was possible that you never saw this video. That is a possible world. But the greatest possible being has to exist necessarily in every possible world. There cannot be two greatest possible beings. in that case one of them will be greatest. It is contradictory by definition.

[@allgodsmyth7318]

@@MrSlickJerk Please demonstrate that there is a non-physical world in which a being could exist. A world in which I never saw this video is a possible _physical_ world. You and Plantinga both only ever describe possible _physical_ worlds. Plantinga only ever defends his greatest possible being as existing _in_ physical worlds (by analogy). I think it is you that doesn't quite get it.

[@frankmanning3815]

Why does his argument have to address God's existence outside of time?

[@ManForToday]

You’ve totally misunderstood. Possible world just means a way the world could be. You’re thinking of multiple worlds.

[@dogsdomain8458]

Well the "greatest possible being" is a vagur concept

[@ManForToday]

He literally defines it specifically. Open your ears.

[@Chrisplumbgas]

Yes!! Another nail in the atheist coffin!

[@HardKore5250]

Chris Wright how?

[@_a.z]

Explain?

[@tajzikria5307]

Atheism is a reflection of ignorance.

[@firstnamesurname6550]

When/where You go inside The Abysm ... and The Abysm begins to isolate You from Everything ... Once You get - radically - isolated inside it ... It is possible to believe that You are The Abysm ... But If You believe that, You are not yet near to the bottom end of The Abysm ... You are just afraid to Die ...

[@yusufdogan2330]

He said possible 15 times in 45 seconds.

[@_a.z]

These are just philosopher's toys, not necessarily rooted in reality! Naturalistic explanations can encompass bizarre possibilities including infinite space beyond our own universe and quantum instability as our universe's first cause.

[@Chrisplumbgas]

No GOD created it. You cannot get something from nothing in any possible world.

[@_a.z]

@@Chrisplumbgas If you can't get something from nothing, where did your god come from? A God is infinitely less likely than a much more mundane background to our universe that is being theorised in many ways.

[@Chrisplumbgas]

More guesswork.

[@_a.z]

@@Chrisplumbgas So how is magic more plausible than naturalistic explanations?

[@Chrisplumbgas]

@@_a.z everything that begins to exist , has a cause for its coming into being, except for the agent of first cause of all things, a being that cannot not exist, that would be God.

[@DeusExAstra]

The very notion that it's possible that a being exists that is omnipotent or omniscient is absurd. That alone makes that whole argument total nonsense. You might as well be arguing over the greatest possible toaster, or the greatest possible flying pink unicorn. Same argument, same conclusion, we live in a world were a flying pink unicorn exists... and is omnipotent and omniscient because of course it is, it's the greatest possible whatever.

[@infov0y]

"The very notion that it's possible that a being exists that is omnipotent or omniscient is absurd." Why? For instance, if I said it's possible that our Universe is a simulation and that the creator of the simulation can know anything it likes about its simulation and do anything it likes to it, then how is that absurd?

[@DeusExAstra]

@@infov0y It's absurd if you claim that the creator of the simulation if omnipotent and omniscient. Just because the creator could do whatever he/she wanted in the simulation, it doesnt make him/her omnipotent, just apparently omnipotent to those inside the simulation. And even then, he still would not be able to do anything, he's still be bound by the rules of the system running the simulation. So your example gets you nowhere. But if you're simply asking "why is the notion absurd", there are actually many reasons... just one being physics. It's impossible to know even the absolute position of a single particle with infinite precision. That's just basic quantum mechanics. Now, if you then say that this entity could be outside of the universe and hence QM and other known physics doesnt necessarily apply... then you're just getting into the realm of philosophy and fantasy. Those arguments are pointless. But there are philosophical reasons why an omnipotent/omniscient entity could not exist. You'll just have to go ask someone who wants to have such arguments.

[@infov0y]

@@DeusExAstra Being omniX in respects to the simulation (or in this case universe) is all that's needed. And the rules of the simulation or universe are irrelevent, as the simulation can be re-programmed. "But there are philosophical reasons why an omnipotent/omniscient entity could not exist." I've not seen any - you'd need to point them out.

[@DeusExAstra]

@@infov0y "Being omniX in respects to the simulation is all that's needed"... in that case by omnipotent/omniscient you dont actually mean those words to be their actual definitions. People who believe that a god is omnipotent dont say he's only omnipotent as far as our limited universe, they mean it in terms of everything that exists. And like I said, even if you had the most power possible in a simulation, you would still not be omnipotent in that simulation, because you'd still be constrained by the programming of the simulation and the laws of physics of the universe in which it exists.

[@infov0y]

@@DeusExAstra OK, make it omnipotent over its creation and in its own domain. So what, it makes nio difference. And as I said, it could reprogram the simulation

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Some old crappy argument emerging from post world war 2, its awfully serious. Put it away.

[@K0wface]

What BS lmfao no logical issues?!?

[@BenIsa1974]

He egzists thus you can talk about Him.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

There is a possible pig that flies so high he goes into orbit..... therefore.

[@tbayley6]

Yes, but this possible pig can fly in all possible worlds. Apparently that's the 'possibility' that the argument hinges on. So the leger de main is a radical inflation of a more moderate claim, that God might exist in one possible world, to the extreme claim that in such a world God would have to be said to necessarily exist in all possible worlds.

[@infov0y]

"There is a possible pig that flies so high he goes into orbit..... therefore." Not sure what your point is. Flying pigs aren't usually thought to be omniscient, omnipotent etc, so there's no reason to think they should exist in all possible worlds if it were the case they actually existed in one.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

@@infov0y ah yes. also: the emperor's clothes are of incredibly fine silk not visible to the eyes of anyone who hadn't studied sophisticated theology.... i do understand the technicality you are pointing to, and yes, i agree if batman every really did fight superman, of course we know how the rules of that fantasy universe would obviously play out, right?! ;)

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

@@tbayley6 my definition of flying pigs actually includes them being omnipresent but invisible...

[@infov0y]

@@JAYDUBYAH29 If someone makes an argument and you want to dispute it, you need to address the argument, not just dismiss it with a hand wave, an insult, and an analogy that doesn't make sense unless you've totally misunderstood their argument. Or well, you can, but it means you can rightly be ignored.

[@mikebell4649]

Infovoy well I don’t use faith in life I aportion trust in what I can see n feel ! I feel n see my partner shows no sign of cheating n thus assign emotional investments in what I can demonstrate! An argument well debunked

[@infov0y]

So you're taking what you subjectively feel, and an easily-wrong persepective on what you see (that is, you ciould easily be deceived), rather than any scientific-like evidence, and basing a belief on it that just happens to match what you want to be the case. Hmm, sounds like faith.

[@mikebell4649]

infovoy no thats not faith !! I assign confidence to the evidence i can measure ! Do i know my partner is cheating ? No I don’t but i can narrow the probabilities by checking n allowing evidence to show me in demonstration! I just dont put my partner under investigation as i would under lab’ conditions ! Thats not faith as described in the bible! That faith is belief without evidence!!

[@infov0y]

@@mikebell4649 No, faith is belief without proof, not belief without evidence.

[@infov0y]

@@mikebell4649 For instance, thinking religious people's evidence might be their feeling and intuition, and personal subjective experience, just like everyday faith. They also have the evidence of the Universes existance of course, though it's not great evidence as there are other, equally strange explanations posible. But what they don't have is proof any thinking relious person knows that - it's what religious faith is all about.

[@mikebell4649]

infovoy faith is defined in the bible as belief without evidence !!! Or proof ! People’s experiences can be wrong !! Exactly especially if u believe beforehand! U fave a strawman definition n i can tell u i can experiment n verify my partner is not cheating!!!!can u verify people’s experiences n demonstrate they’re truth or not!

[@mikebell4649]

Word salad ! This god cud demonstrate itself then it should do

[@infov0y]

If it were a reator concerned with humanity that's a good question, though the creator could nonetheless have a good reason. If its a creator oblivious to humanity then it's not really a good question.

[@mikebell4649]

infovoy and yet theists are adamant it created them and wrote a books to tell them how to live and how to worship it? The only known ideas about it are from these books! Its pressupossitional at best

[@infov0y]

@@mikebell4649 Well, not all theists, but believers in Abrahamic religions at least yes. As I say, there are conceivable reasons why such a god wouldn't reveal itself. For instance, if it were interested in testing our faith in it (faith explicitly being belief without enough evidence to know for sure). But even then, one could counter that an all-good god wouldn't be testing us in such a way. I think yours is a good point, but I don't think his argument is a "word salad". It may b e wrong, but it's not nonsense.

[@mikebell4649]

Sure if we can assume its character lets assume he punishes people who use faith as its just gullibility n useless

[@mikebell4649]

If all we wana do is disregard epistemology and logic then anything can b true right ! Lets start with what we can demonstrate to be true n move in that direction! It wud be novel!!! But truer than what he said

[@infov0y]

new atheists. lol.