Debate between Theism (NOT Christian Theism) and Atheism.

Elroch seems to be of the same opinion as you. However, it isn't necessary to take a class because it isn't possible to prove that God exists.

God is beyond the material. Our minds cannot comprehend God. Therefore no proof is possible.

Your logic does not follow. Knowing that something exists does not entail comprehension of its existence. We know nature exists, but we do not comprehend nature.Therefore if he claims to have proven God exists, he's wrong and probably crazy into the bargain, since his other argument is that knowledge is necessarily incomplete and so no proof of axioms is possible. It hardly takes a genius to work that out though. You'll have to do better than that. Give his argument in English. If you can't do that then it's evident that you don't understand it, so then how come you believe it's correct?

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.

This is a misrepresentation of his first premise. Plantinga says that it is possible (in modal logic terms) that a maximally great being exists. A property of a maximally great being would be necessary existence. Take the definitions of possible and necessary. Something that is possible in modal logic is true in at least one possible world. Something that is necessary in modal logic is true in all possible worlds, so imagine Plantinga’s argument like this.

You’re looking at a mansion. You know for a fact that this mansion has only one light switch. You decide to open one of its window blinds to determine if that light is on. If the light is on, the light is on in every room. 

(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.Therefore4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.Therefore6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.Therefore8) God has necessary existence.(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.Therefore10) God exists.

You mischaracterized his argument. The premises are not his.

God only has necessary existence from the point of view of this argument, which is the point of view of the person putting the argument forward. That is, it's clear that the person putting the argument forward has determined that God must have necessary existence and the rest is an attempt to rationalise that supposition.

The person putting forth the argument is claiming that in one possible world out of an infinitude of them, a maximally great being exists. As long as the concept of a maximally great being is non-contradictory, a maximally great being will exist in at least one possible world. That possible world may be just the being itself; nevertheless, it exists. 

The argument reaches the point where either God necessarily exists or necessarily doesn't exist and then we get (7), where the author claims that the latter is wrong and so the former muct be right. There isn't any argument for it or even any attempted argument. There's therefore nothing to refute. It's merely a statement of opinion, weakened considerably by the author's ineptness at logical analysis. I've certainly seen much better attampt at an ontologiccal argument but they all fail because, of course, it's impossible to define something into existence.

It's quite riciculous, since the author believes he can define into existence a maximally great being. Therefore THE AUTHOR MUST BELIEVE THAT HE HIMSELF IS A NATURALLY GREAT BEING.

Defining a being into existence is different than arguing for the being’s existence by what the concept of the being is. It’s like saying the Higgs-Boson was defined into existence

If you can come up with a better effort at an ontological argument, I'll see what I think but Plantinga's is so poor it's laughable. Since it doesn't contain an argument, it isn't possible to formally analyse it.

The outline in red is enough to see that all he's trying to do is tie people in knots.

Except, that’s not his argument

The premises may be someone's interpretation but it's still all nonsense because it isn't possible to prove something exists unless the attempt at deductive reasoning is backed up by observation.

I guess you’re an empiricist? I find that controversial

Otherwise it really is all nonsense.

I already asked you to show me what you consider to be Plantinga's formal reasoning and you haven't done so. If you can't produce the attempted proof, I have nothing to go on and I will naturally conclude that it's an attempt by Plantinga to confuse people. Show me the formal proof please.

If you give me the exact reference, I'll summon the book up online.