What's New on the Secular Web?
| The News Wire | Best of the Library | Featured Books | Kiosk Editor's Choice |
April 30, 2016
Added A Critique of the Plantinga Version of the Modal Ontological Argument (2016) by Arnold T. Guminski to the Ontological Arguments page under Arguments for the Existence of a God, as well as the Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig pages under Criticisms of Christian Apologetics and Apologists, in the Modern Documents section of the Secular Web Library.
In this paper Arnold T. Guminski examines the modal ontological argument based upon possible worlds semantics expounded by Alvin Plantinga and further developed and defended by William Lane Craig. In section A Guminski discloses the flawed underlying assumptions of this Plantinga modal ontological argument (PMOA). In section B he defends the "anti - Plantinga modal ontological argument - argument" (or anti-PMOA-argument) by showing that a maximally great being is not broadly logically possible. In section C Guminski shows that the anti-PMOA-argument is amply confirmed since the procedure used to construct the PMOA plausibly allows the construction of arguments relevantly similar to the PMOA, but inconsistent with it. Section D explains why that which is broadly logically possible/necessary ought to be distinguished from that which is metaphysically possible/necessary. Section E considers the plausibility of premise 1 of the PMOA according to the writings of other scholars.
April 21, 2016
Rather than being the main problem with Islam, jihadism is just the most prominent symptom of a deeper problem which has been worsening for a long time. Over the last thousand years, Muslim societies stagnated as religion took over and stifled everything else, and they gradually fell behind both economically and technologically. The last remaining part of their identity which they still can see as truly their own is religion.