tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post9084779560312687686..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: An ontological argumentAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-33740240865166627822012-11-14T14:36:26.084-06:002012-11-14T14:36:26.084-06:00It seems to me (and I have very little training in...It seems to me (and I have very little training in philosophy, so I may be way off) that possibility is the rational default. So, I don't know why people debate premises like your P1 (very similar to Plantinga's premise in his version of the Ontological Argument). Possibility is just openness, in the absence of some impossibility being demonstrated. It's not as though there's a third option ("agnosticism" or "undecidedness" in this case would be incoherent, since it would leave the possibility open, but "possibility" is one of the two options).<br /><br />It seems to me that any premise that just says "X is possible" ought to be accepted in the absence of any defeaters or reasons to think X is <i>im</i>possible. Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.com