Скачать или смотреть Betting on Necessity: The Modal Ontological Argument

I address a few objections to this video, here:    • Housekeeping  

FOOTNOTES:

00:35 — "Onto-Illogical"    • Onto-illogical!  

1:35 — If you're already familiar with modal logic and possible world semantics, you can skip ahead to my criticism of Plantinga's MOA, at the 4:38 mark.

12:27 — This moment has been edited to make a correction; a previous upload of this video (which is now unlisted) mistakenly had premise (2) as, "If God exists, the proposition 'God does not exist' is not self-contradictory". My apologies. Link to the original video and all its comments:    • Betting on Necessity: The Modal Ontologica...  

13:25 — Swinburne's paper, "What Kind of Necessary Being Could God Be?": http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf_f...

30:40 — I suppose there is one thing we could conceivably claim enjoys necessary existence: "reality". The statement, "Reality doesn't exist" does seem to entail a contradiction. But this is because what we mean by "reality" is just whatever happens to be the case. So saying reality doesn't exist would be equivalent to saying it is the case that nothing is the case—a contradiction. (Of course, I think this is probably just a trick of English language. It's a stretch to think of reality itself—that which is the case—as a "being" or "object".)

I'm on Twitter a lot, nowadays. Find me there at @TheoreticalBS

Sorry, as usual, for the long hiatus. It's good to be back.