tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post8067319294048910772..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: The ontological argument from desireAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-12966180779580717272011-11-18T11:22:23.770-06:002011-11-18T11:22:23.770-06:00The modality in my arguments is generally alethic ...The modality in my arguments is generally alethic and not epistemic, and it is metaphysical necessity rather than narrowly logical necessity relative to a logical system. "A priori" and "a posteriori" are epistemological categories--they don't affect the kind of necessity in question.<br /><br />Are there any desires of type K--say, visceral ones--that couldn't be fulfilled, besides the case in the present controversy?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-71652552621033816752011-11-18T10:58:11.314-06:002011-11-18T10:58:11.314-06:00I don't for a moment buy that argument. The re...I don't for a moment buy that argument. The reason is that you are confusing the modal notions of a priori and a posteriori possiblity. <br />IF you define non-contingency into your definition of God to justify premise 6, then premise 5 must also work with an a posteriori notion of possibility, or at least a non-epistemic notion of possibility. I claim that your premise 8's plausibility is illusory unless it refers to epistemic possibility given the knowledge of the desiring being. Hence your refutation of my analogy fails.Nightvidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03320916322586904305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36721710291127401372011-08-29T00:16:56.170-05:002011-08-29T00:16:56.170-05:00"By the same token you could argue that flyin..."By the same token you could argue that flying cars exist, since we desire one (or most of us, at any rate)"<br /><br />Nope. Please carefully read the arguments before commenting on them. The crucial assumption in the argument is that if there is no God, there can be no God. The analogous assumption fails for flying cars.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-12760914232990320122011-08-28T23:00:58.755-05:002011-08-28T23:00:58.755-05:00First of all, there is no evidence that there is a...First of all, there is no evidence that there is a universal theological desire. But even if there were, this argument is absurd and stupid. By the same token you could argue that flying cars exist, since we desire one (or most of us, at any rate)Nightvidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03320916322586904305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-37622201988726065682010-04-26T09:24:49.256-05:002010-04-26T09:24:49.256-05:00very interesting professor Pruss.
I found this us...very interesting professor Pruss.<br /><br />I found this useful when writing about Camus and his "act of eluding." There seems to be a real consensus on the "deep theological desire" maybe its what nauseated Sartre? Who knows, but definitely think Augustine was on to something!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com