|
I really don't understand the statement:
If God exists, he exists necessarily.
If a bucket is red, then it is red necessarily.
In fact, if a bucket exists, then it exists necessarily, in the sense that a bucket which exists that does not exist is obviously a contradiction.
If anything exists it exists neccesarily.
In fact even more generally:
A implies A neccesarily.
The only thing that the ontological argument does is show that "God exists" is implicit in the definition of god. The fliminian's existence is the same, except that it is stated explicitly in it's definition.
________________________
My biggest problem with the ontological argument as you have stated above is the jump from 5 to 6.
5. Therefore, in the possible world in which God exists, he exists necessarily. (3,4)
6. If something exists necessarily, it exists in all possible worlds (definition of necessity)
-in a possible world where my bucket is red, it is red necessarily.
-If it is red neccesarily, then it is red in all possible worlds.
-therefore my bucket is red.
the definition of necessity is essentially that A implies B.
so if we have "A then B neccesarily", we can postulate a world where A.
In that world we necessarilty have B.
it does not follow that we have B in all worlds...only worlds where A.
restated:
In worlds where we have A, we have B necessarily.
In fact in ALL WORLDS where A, we necessarily have B.
But it does not follow that we necessarily have B in all worlds...we only have B necessarily in worlds where we have A.
__________________
|