| ... |
... |
@@ -1,27
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====The GCB exists.==== |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
- |
| 4 |
|
-====~~1~~ The modal ontological argument—the GCB's existence in a possible world implies necessary existence in our world.==== |
| 5 |
|
-**Himma **(Kenneth Einar Himma, Seattle Pacific University, "Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence," IEP, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/~~#H4) OS |
| 6 |
|
-Perhaps the most influential of contemporary modal arguments is Plantinga's version. Plantinga begins by |
| 7 |
|
-AND |
| 8 |
|
-in every possible world. Here is a schematic representation of the argument: |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
- |
| 12 |
|
-====~~3~~ Possibility requires a being that coninstantiates all positive predicates.==== |
| 13 |
|
-**Chignell** (Andrew Chignell, Philosophy Prof at Cornell, one of the foremost scholars on Kant, Kant, Modality, and the Most Real Being, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (2):157-19, 2009) OS |
| 14 |
|
-A few preliminary remarks about these: First, note that Kant takes objects as |
| 15 |
|
-AND |
| 16 |
|
-or derivable from necessarily instantiated predicates in a way that explains their harmony. |
| 17 |
|
- |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
- |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
-====Thus, the standard is consistency with the GCB's will.==== |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
-====Negating is the squo—colleges have unconstitutional speech codes.==== |
| 24 |
|
-**FIRE '17 **~~Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "State of the Law: Speech Codes." 2017. Web. https://www.thefire.org/in-court/state-of-the-law-speech-codes/~~ |
| 25 |
|
-FIRE defines a speech code as any campus regulation that punishes, forbids, heavily |
| 26 |
|
-AND |
| 27 |
|
-it cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. |