<2022-06-29T23:10:35.000Z> Gelert: Hello Myles, Recently you affirmed the legitimacy of the ontological argument when tackling that Ex nihilo nihil fit article.I've been reading a lot of W L Craig (per your recommendation), as well as Davies' 'Thinking about God' which I borrowed from my priest. Both endorse the Ontological argument as potentially convincing in as an apologetic argument but don't seem to conclude very well on it's actual logical veracity, seeming to mention it only as an afterthought despite your insistence on it's value.I was hoping you may expound on the ontological argument as I wrestled for a fortnight with Plantinga and Anselm of Canterbury drawing mind maps etc. and, while it's not fresh in my head currently, I came to the conclusion that it really was trying to conjure God from a word salad. Perhaps you may lay it out in a way I can better understand.Thanks.
<2022-06-29T23:13:03.000Z> Gelert: To preface, I am satisfied in my investigation of God's existence, I have read an awful lot and talked with my priest and others an awful lot. I would just like to hear your take on this specifically.
<2022-06-29T23:17:12.000Z> Godcast: You say "priest," so I'm assuming you're Catholic? I find that Craig, Plantings, etc haven't really percolated through much of Catholic apologetic discourse, so much of their talk on the Ontological argument centers on Anselm. Anselm wrote the argument for Christians who were a bit shaky on God being the greatest conceivable being.
<2022-06-29T23:20:20.000Z> Godcast: By contrast, Plantinga is writing to an audience of trained logicians, usually skeptics. The critical part of the Modal Ontological argument for me is God's attribute of being logically necessary. For anything to exist at all, we need a terminator of time, matter, space, etc. There has to be a locomotive pulling the train cars. 
<2022-06-29T23:21:35.000Z> Godcast: So the Ontological argument stands on it's own, but I find it useful to tie it to arguments about cosmology, time, absurdity of actual infinities, etc.
<2022-06-29T23:41:23.000Z> Gelert: Thanks for the quick reply! I wouldn't presume to call myself Catholic, at least not yet. I've been attending a Catholic church for the last seven months per your response to my email where the only other option was Church of England with a female pastor but my incredulity still hasn't been satisfied enough for me to pursue confirmation without feeling like a hypocrite, maybe I'm being too overly cautious but I'm still persevering happily with the journey. It's been a while since I went over it so please forgive me if I'm a little slow. It was my understanding that the ontological argument posits the existence of God based on the definition of God including his existence. What you have just described with the necessity of God is just a cosmological argument is it not? As for Plantinga's version, does the necessity not come from the possibility of a "maximally excellent being"? This seems to get around Leibnitz' response to Descartes about the impossibility of proving "supreme perfections" to be coherent by redefining the nature of God's attributes but does this not instead reduce God's traits to simply a maximal instead of as a supreme ultimate? God's wisdom, I feel for example, is not comparable to that of Plato, as God's is the ultimate form of wisdom perfect. If we are to reduce God to the domain of maximals then God is wise like Plato, simply to a maximal degree. Sorry if I'm off base but it seems like we may not even call such a "maximally great being" God.Thanks for bearing with me!
<2022-06-29T23:46:34.000Z> Gelert: To put that final sentiment another way: I've been told that another way to think of God is as the being lacking nothing. Perhaps this isn't a helpful perspective, but if we reduce God to maximals, then do we not imply that there may be things outside of those maximals which are not accounted for as a maximal is not necessarily perfect.
<2022-06-29T23:50:56.000Z> Godcast: Yes, as I mentioned, I find the Ontological argument useful as a part of a different line of argumentation. Most people find the Ontological argument deeply confusing, rightfully so, so I haven't found it to be very useful.
<2022-06-29T23:54:33.000Z> Godcast: I don't think God is being reduced to mere maximals, I think those maximals are attributes that He has. So per your example, God is not only omniscient, but also the most wise in the same manner as Plato. Further, Plantinga posits that God's great-making properties are true to the maximum extent. So God wouldn't be just a bit wiser than the wisest non-God person in the universe, but His wisdom would be the maximal amount conceivable. And if we could later conceive of greater wisdom, God would have that. Am I making sense?
<2022-07-02T00:38:09.000Z> Gelert: I think so, I'm uncomfortable with saying "God is that which lacks the least" instead of "God is that which lacks nothing", which fundamentally defines the nature of God. I suppose the former statement can refer to that described in the latter, they are not mutually exclusive, but it seems inferior in so far as it makes allowance for imperfection in it's implication. I can now see how perhaps those already in the milieu of belief, such as in Anselm's day, may find this argument logically affirming, in that it is in the context of existing belief in God, so the implication of possible imperfection is absent, but on it's own it certainly seems weaker than others as you say.
<2022-07-02T00:54:34.000Z> Godcast: I don't see any issue squaring your connundrum in your first paragraph. I guess I'm not understanding why it's an issue. Depends on what it is you're trying to define into existence. The monk who argued against Anselm in his "In Defense of the Fool" used "a most perfect island" to point out the flaws in Anselm's argument. But even a perfect island could be a maximally great Islam and not be a maximally great being, because islands have properties that limit them. Personally I have no problem affirming the existence of a maximally excellent island, and I think it's Fiji. 
<2022-07-02T00:54:57.000Z> Godcast: **maximally great island
<2022-07-02T01:02:58.000Z> Gelert: So, because God has no innate properties limiting him, by his very nature, he is ontologically necessary? Hmm, that may have done it, I can't think of a way to weasel out of that, no comparison that could fit the same criteria.I do believe the maximally excellent island is my own "sceptred isle" however and I'm afraid there is no argument, ontological word salad or otherwise that will shift me from that position, sorry.
<2022-07-02T01:08:34.000Z> Gelert: I'll chew it over a bit more to finally satisfy myself but I think it may have clicked. Thanks Myles!
<2022-07-02T01:09:04.000Z> Godcast: Absolutely brother 
<2023-03-28T16:48:18.000Z> Gelert: Hey Myles, I think I heard that you're doing Excalibur for Pn'S, Just some interesting trivia you may want to include If I'm not too late.The armour and many of the props were in fact sourced from a canned live action adaptation of Lord of the Rings, explaining why a lot of the armour looks beastly and Orc-like.A cool thing to take notice of during the film is the use of green lighting and the magical singing/drone, attributed to the Dragon and old magic, in contrast to the use of Wagner and O Fortuna which seem to represent instead man's capacity for Grace and expression of Christianity from Merlin's old ways. A good scene for this is when Arthur puts himself at Urien's mercy in the moat and the all knowing Merlin exclaims "I never saw this!"Likewise when Arthur orders Percival to return Excalibur to the lake Percival says "Excalibur cannot be lost, other men-" Arthur cuts off Percival at the mention of "other men" to declare "one day a king will come and the sword will rise again". The final act of faith rewarded with Wagner's triumphal fanfare and rounding out the themes of ultimate power in the hands of flawed men given up to the ultimate judgement of God. Excalibur, in the middle of this tension between God and the Dragon stands as a symbol of power in the hands of man with the knowledge of good and evil, to be forever confounded trying to grasp at the power offered by the Dragon in sin, or to surrender to God's righteousness and put away Pride, this is never more apparent then when Arthur duels Lancelot and breaks the sword. Merlin seems flabbergasted, not understanding, but the penitent Arthur understands his folly immediately. In this context Merlin seems to be ignorant of God but learned in worldly powers, kind of reminds me of a Plato trying to guide his ideal monarch and getting constantly frustrated at being confounded by man's innate sinful nature.If you get around to God's and Generals, both that movie and Gettysburg were made possible because of the volunteering of re-enactment groups from across the country slashing costs for props, costumes, weapons and training. A real labour of love for CW nerds. I can't watch it without stopping every five minutes to lecture about this or that general and battle. Both movies were only made because the producer Ted Turner wanted to make them personally. They fall under the sort of movies made by real enthusiasts that can't ever be made again given modern attitudes and the shrinking re-enactment community. Also, the original score for both movies is phenomenal. Tracks like 'Over the Fence', 'These brave Irishmen', 'Fife and Gun' and the title tracks are really iconic. Duvall is a better Lee than Sheen for sure.
<2023-03-28T17:02:46.000Z> Godcast: Interesting stuff. We actually recorded about a month ago, but I can include that in the show notes if you like
<2023-03-28T17:31:35.000Z> Gelert: No problem, looking forward to the episode!
<2023-03-28T18:06:51.000Z> Godcast: Its sitting in my completed folder at the moment. Want the episode early? We won't be publishing that particular one for about a month 
<2023-03-28T20:42:54.000Z> Gelert: That would be just aces, thanks!
<2023-04-02T13:17:31.000Z> Godcast: here's the ep
<2023-04-02T13:17:32.000Z> Godcast: filetransfer.io/data-package/hkege4sd#link