This is one of the most complex issues there is,especially Hartshorne's version which I use,or one similar to his. On Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea Blog I found our old friend Stardust makimng the claim that there are no valid arguments for God. As it turns out he didn't know what valid meant. He didn't know in logic it refers to the technical presentation of the argumet Arguments must be both valid and sound, soundness refers to truth. After dancing around that for a bit I decided to just challenge him to debate the modal argument
My argument:
1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God is necessary.
6. That God's existence is necessary is a good reason to believe that God is real.
7. Therefore, believe in God's reality is warranted.
Notice I don't say god's "existence," Those of you who follow my blog and have seen my discussion of Tillich will understand this, for the rest of you it';snot important. Notice also that I argue in terms of warrant and not proof. Both Hartshorne and Plantinga refuse to contend they have prove the existence of God but Plantingia argues that the nodal argument is warrant for belief.[1]
Dusty argued:
"IF God exists THEN it is logically necessary that(God exists)"Only in the tautological sense that this statement applies to all existent things. If a thing exists then it is necessary that it exists since it is existent. That makes god nothing special.
Metacrock (me):
wrong, you are not paying attention ,What is being said is that there are only two possibles regarding God's modal status, either necessary or impossible. In other words no middle ground, if God exists he must exist he can't be a maybe, he could not have failed to exist, if there is a God there had to be a God. The only alternative is that if God does not exist it's impossible that God could have existed God either exists and it is necessary that he does or he doesn't exist and if so it's because he could not exit.
Dusty:
If you mean some notion of alternative possibilities that makes god special necessarily then no, one can speculate that something gave rise to god, god's god, but maybe god's god died, though previously greater than god, but now dead, so now god exists.
Meta:
Nope doesn't work that way. God has to be eternal or he can't be at all., he could not have a cause.If God exists he exists as a necessity, A necessity doesn't have a cause,if it did it would be contingent.
Dusty
The speculative alternative formulations are unbounded, hence the assertion of necessity is false.
Meta
wrong modal operators are not "unbounded." Yes there is a limitless field of speculation concerning God but NOT where modal operators are concerned.
Dusty
Fail from the git go, but then, you did not fully define your terms so you might think you have some definitional alternatives to these failings.Meta
Line 3 is a non-sequitur. Just because we can imagine something that does not contradict itself as we imagine it does not mean the reality of the universe can possibly accommodate a realization of that fantasy.
p3 is the lynch pin of the thing, it's anything but irrelevant, the argent turns upon it.
[This argument is about logic and it came in the discussion when we where arguing about validity.So how constriction is regarded in logic really matters.The concept of impossibility is about logical contradiction. Since impossibility is obtained by being illogicality contradictory the lack of contradiction means possibility,]
Dusty
Hartshorne is asserting that mere fantasy is sufficient to allow for external realization. He obviously has a hard time separating fantasy from reality, but that is typical of the theistic mind.Meta
No logician in the world thinks that, he is not saying that,
[He's equating using logic to Establishment of truth by logic with fantasy because he thinks empiricism is the only form of knowledge. As iv say below his position of empiricism as the only true knowledge cannot be proved empirically, He has to use logic to establish probability then to connect probability to empiricism.We know logic can tell us some things about the world. For example we don't have to go look for square circles we know there are none because the concept contradicts itself. For positive understanding of truth content thorough logic see below.]
DustyMeta
The whole argument hinges on thinking makes it so, an absurd notion. Why anybody takes this nonsense at all seriously is truly a wonderment for me.
It's so sophomoric to reduce the work of a recognized great thinker to "he thinks thinking makes it so." No he did not think that.He thought that the ontological principle is true. in other words if the terms of a proportion spell out the truth content of the proposition when understood then we have to assume the truth of the argument if the prepositions are valid.
Tillich's example of this principle is that the principle of truth cannot be disputed without admitting to the validity of the principle. One can only say the principle is false if one is willing to admit that truth exists and this principle departs from it, Thus to dispute the truth of truth is to accept the proportion that truth exists. Truth can never be disputed as truth or as sound based upon a logical denial. This is Duane Olson explaining Tillich's view:
The indubitability of the norm of truth is shown by a reductio argument regarding the process of knowing. In different places and in different ways Tillich points out that denial and doubt in knowing presuppose the norm of truth.[17 in the article] I want to systematize Tillich’s reductio argument at this point to show that all major theoretical postures presuppose this norm.
Sources
[1] Donald Wayne Viney and George W. Shields "Charles Hartshorne Theistic and Anti-theistic Arguments," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a Peer Reviewed Academic Resource. Internet online resource. no date indicated, URL: http://www.iep.utm.edu/hart-t-a/#H1 (accessed 1/15/17).
Donald Wayne Viney Email: don_viney@yahoo.com Pittsburg State University U. S. A.
George W. Shields Email: George.shields@kysu.edu Kentucky State University U. S. A.
[2]Duane Olson, “Pual Tiillich and the Ontological Argument,” Quodlibet Journal vol. 6, no 3, July-sep 2004, online journal, URL: http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/olson-tillich.shtml visited 8/4/10 Olson has two foot notes in this quotation which are important to examine:
1) “In one of the more significant recent monographs on Tillich’s thought, Langdon Gilkey flatly states “[Tillich] denied that an argument for the transcendent power and ground of being was possible” (Gilkey on Tillich (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 105). Gilkey never discusses Tillich’s use of the traditional arguments.” (2) “In his detailed and extensive volume on the ontological argument, Graham Oppy mentions Tillich’s name only once in the literature review, and he never analyzes any of Tillich’s statements (Ontological Arguments and Belief in God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 275). To Oppy’s credit, he discusses a type of argument to which Tillich’s is related. I comment on Oppy’s analysis of this argument in the final section of this paper.”
29 comments:
I find it bothersome that your modal argument denies possible and perfectly reasonable modes of existence. Consider a hypothetical object or being of some kind that is understood to have eternal existence, so it cannot be contingent, but it is not God. What modal states might this thing have? Let's assume that it may exist in some possible worlds, but not all worlds. Therefore, we can say that it isn't necessary (because it doesn't exist in all possible worlds). We can also say that it is not impossible (because it does exist in some worlds). So this hypothetical thing can be both not contingent and possible but not necessary. There is nothing about this that violates ordinary logic. And yet, you are saying that God is either necessary or impossible. That violates logic, as I have just outlined, since something can logically be neither necessary, nor impossible. Unless, of course, the necessity of God is assumed, which is what you do. In other words, necessary existence is built into your definition of what God is. Your modal argument is implicitly dependent on that assumption. And that's where you go wrong. You have to justify that assumption, and you haven't done that.
God is a being he's not just a being that happens to be eternal. Not even the most powerful such being, He is the ground of being or being itself, The basis of all things. There can't be an eternal being not contingent upon the ground of being.
"necessary existence is built into your definition of what God is."
Du! that's why it's called modal argument because it uses modal operators for God. There's nothing illogical about that assumption in fact it is logical to assume given the notion of ground of being.
Joe: 1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God is necessary.
6. That God's existence is necessary is a good reason to believe that God is real.
7. Therefore, believe in God's reality is warranted.
If you want to claim the logic is valid, then okay. However, it is not sound because your premise are unproven.
I am guessing your definition of God is that he is necessary, so premise 1 is true by definition. But your claim that a necessary God can be conceived without contradiction may or may not be true.
If you challenge me to come up with a contradiction, then effectively you are saying the existence of God depends on what some guy on the internet thinks. If The Pixie can think of a contradiction then there is no God, and if he cannot then God exists. And I really do not have the power to determine if God exists!
So really 2 has to mean that there is no actual reason why a necessary God is not possible (regardless of whether someone has conveved that reason) - and indeed, 2 is the same as 4. Both are true if a necessary God is possible and false otherwise.
So why should we think 2/4 is true?
Pix
my old friend Pixie (Px) says:
If you want to claim the logic is valid, then okay. However, it is not sound because your premise are unproven.
"Proven" is a relative term. I don't think they have to be proven because most things can't be proven. They have to be warranted. They are that.
I am guessing your definition of God is that he is necessary, so premise 1 is true by definition. But your claim that a necessary God can be conceived without contradiction may or may not be true.
Show me the contradiction.
If you challenge me to come up with a contradiction, then effectively you are saying the existence of God depends on what some guy on the internet thinks.
That's ridiculous. If you really mean that then you wont purse an argument because you are just some guy on the internet. It's really like saying belief in God is subject to logic and anyone can make a logical argument.
If The Pixie can think of a contradiction then there is no God, and if he cannot then God exists. And I really do not have the power to determine if God exists!
You are blurring the distinction between the message and the bearer of the message..
So really 2 has to mean that there is no actual reason why a necessary God is not possible (regardless of whether someone has conveved that reason) - and indeed, 2 is the same as 4. Both are true if a necessary God is possible and false otherwise.
Hartshorne says God is not merely possible he must be either necessary or impossible.
So why should we think 2/4 is true?
Pix
2 is empirical, show me the contradiction. I can imagine god with no contradiction. 4 show me the impossibility of God?
Joe: Show me the contradiction.
So as I said your argument is predicated on whether some guy on the internet can think of a contradiction. if I can, then your argument fails and God does not exist.
Joe: That's ridiculous. If you really mean that then you wont purse an argument because you are just some guy on the internet. It's really like saying belief in God is subject to logic and anyone can make a logical argument.
The point is that your argument is predicated on what some random guy on the internet thinks. It is built into "God can be conceived without contradiction." You argument is based on what someone can conceive, and the implication is that the existence of God is based on that too.
If someone can conceive a necessary God without contradiction God exists, and if he cannot God does not exist.
I find that nonsensical.
Joe: You are blurring the distinction between the message and the bearer of the message..
No, Joe, you are. You seem to think whether God exists is determined by what we can conceive.
Consider istead this argument:
1. God is either necessary or impossible (given part of the definition of God is he is necessary).
2. God is not impossible.
3. Therefore God is necessary.
4. Therefore God exists.
That is a valid argument; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. And 1 is true by definition, so you just need to prove 2. And that you cannot do,which is why you need to go down the "God can be conceived without contradiction." road - because actually you cannot show a necessary God is not impossible.
Joe: 2 is empirical, show me the contradiction. I can imagine god with no contradiction. 4 show me the impossibility of God?
And I can imagine a necessary Easter bunny without contradiction. Does not make it magically true.
Is it true that if a thing can be "conceived without contradiction" then it must necessarily be possible? I can conceive a rock that floats. Does that make it possible? No. But we need to go a little deeper. Can I conceive a rock that floats without contradiction? Perhaps not, it depends what we mean exactly. Given the laws of nature, a floating rock does have a contradiction, it is subject to gravity and is considerably more dense than air; rocks fall.
So this hinges on exactly what is meant by "conceived without contradiction".
To a casual glance, of course we can imagine God. But that is not what you are claiming. What it really says is; the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the real world.
It is worth noting that this is NOT saying; the concept of a necessary God is consistent with our understanding of the laws of nature. That would imply that the existence of God could depend on human knowledge, and we can imagine a hypothetical situation whereby as cosmologists learn more about the laws of the universe they reach a point where it is apparent the concept of God is not consistent with how we understand the universe, and at that moment God no longer exists and indeed never did. The floating rock is impossible even before the discovery of gravity.
So is it true or false? Is the concept of a necessary God consistent with the world?
Your argument blithely assumes it is, but offers no reason to suppose that that is so. It might be. But it might not. And to be frank, I do not think our understanding of the universe is good enough to say either way.
Pix
"Du! that's why it's called modal argument because it uses modal operators for God. There's nothing illogical about that assumption in fact it is logical to assume given the notion of ground of being."
- So please tell me what modal operators allow you to conclude that 1) there is one and only one "ground of being", and 2) that this thing you call the "ground of being" must be conscious and creates our world as a deliberate act. (I note that these things are also part of your definition of God.)
im-skeptical said...
"Du! that's why it's called modal argument because it uses modal operators for God. There's nothing illogical about that assumption in fact it is logical to assume given the notion of ground of being."
- So please tell me what modal operators allow you to conclude that 1) there is one and only one "ground of being", and
Everything that exists is part of being. Thus ground of being is ground of everything; like saying the basis for all things. There need not be more than one so we use Occam. Since everything is part of being why would there be more than one ground? what would it be grounding?
2) that this thing you call the "ground of being" must be conscious and creates our world as a deliberate act. (I note that these things are also part of your definition of God.)
why must it be conscious? I reject talking about God Just another guy you meet in bar, or just a big man in the sky. As the basis of all that is one would expect the universe to mirror qualities of God indicative the architect of reality. God us not conscious per se but contains the basis of qualities that produce consciousness. ne such quality is planning and order, consciousness is the highest principle of ordering.
Jesus gives us reason to believe that God has a purpose and a thought-out plan that's the way Jesus talks about God. He clearly claimed to be God as well.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: Show me the contradiction.
So as I said your argument is predicated on whether some guy on the internet can think of a contradiction. if I can, then your argument fails and God does not exist.
Any time an argument contradicts it's invalid or unsound, What's the difference in it being mentioned on the net or not?
Joe: That's ridiculous. If you really mean that then you wont purse an argument because you are just some guy on the internet. It's really like saying belief in God is subject to logic and anyone can make a logical argument.
The point is that your argument is predicated on what some random guy on the internet thinks. It is built into "God can be conceived without contradiction." You argument is based on what someone can conceive, and the implication is that the existence of God is based on that too.
you know that's a meaningless argument? why would it be any different in some guy on the net points it out or the contradiction is made known b a professor at Yale? It's no less contradictory for being on the net.
If someone can conceive a necessary God without contradiction God exists, and if he cannot God does not exist.
I find that nonsensical.
My argument was if God has a contradiction he does not exist, if he doesn't have a contradiction, he's not impossible. You are the one who transposed the meaning from the nature of the concept to who points it out.
Joe: You are blurring the distinction between the message and the bearer of the message..
No, Joe, you are. You seem to think whether God exists is determined by what we can conceive.
Are you sincere? My argument i about the nature of the idea not who says it.
Consider istead this argument:
1. God is either necessary or impossible (given part of the definition of God is he is necessary).
2. God is not impossible.
3. Therefore God is necessary.
4. Therefore God exists.
I have a version of mine like this
That is a valid argument; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. And 1 is true by definition, so you just need to prove 2. And that you cannot do,which is why you need to go down the "God can be conceived without contradiction." road - because actually you cannot show a necessary God is not impossible.
I don't have to, unless you show me the contradiction I have every right assume he's not. I have a conception of God it's your burden to show it's contradictory
Joe: 2 is empirical, show me the contradiction. I can imagine god with no contradiction. 4 show me the impossibility of God?
And I can imagine a necessary Easter bunny without contradiction. Does not make it magically true.
No you can't. There is a contradiction. Budy is not necessary. It's contingent upon bunny parents.
Is it true that if a thing can be "conceived without contradiction" then it must necessarily be possible? I can conceive a rock that floats. Does that make it possible? No.
I said God not possible. He's necessary or impossible.
But we need to go a little deeper. Can I conceive a rock that floats without contradiction? Perhaps not, it depends what we mean exactly. Given the laws of nature, a floating rock does have a contradiction, it is subject to gravity and is considerably more dense than air; rocks fall.
So this hinges on exactly what is meant by "conceived without contradiction".
there are no easter bunnies rocks can;t float because they are too heavy. there are no such contradictions in God that is why you can't find one. the crux of my argument is not imagining God. The point is God not impossible since he can't be contingent has to be necessary.
To a casual glance, of course we can imagine God. But that is not what you are claiming. What it really says is; the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the real world.
Of course it is. Tere is no contradiction in the god concept.
It is worth noting that this is NOT saying; the concept of a necessary God is consistent with our understanding of the laws of nature. That would imply that the existence of God could depend on human knowledge,
b No it doesn't, ut just means we cab understand some surface aspect of the God concept.
and we can imagine a hypothetical situation whereby as cosmologists learn more about the laws of the universe they reach a point where it is apparent the concept of God is not consistent with how we understand the universe, and at that moment God no longer exists and indeed never did. The floating rock is impossible even before the discovery of gravity.
then why can't you find a contradiction? You are wrong, God is entirely consistent with how we find the universe, fine tuning argumet is an example. spike to this above about qualities of the universe. .
So is it true or false? Is the concept of a necessary God consistent with the world?
You can't show me reas why itsnot
Joe: Any time an argument contradicts it's invalid or unsound, What's the difference in it being mentioned on the net or not?
The point is that your argument is predicated on what we can conceive. That is; whether God exists is determined by what people can think up. I think that that is nonsense. Whether God exists or not does NOT depend on what people think - unless your God is imaginary of course!
Joe: you know that's a meaningless argument? why would it be any different in some guy on the net points it out or the contradiction is made known b a professor at Yale? It's no less contradictory for being on the net.
It is different because your argument is predicated on what people think. No professor at Yale would devise an argument that depends on what someone can conceive.
Joe: My argument was if God has a contradiction he does not exist, if he doesn't have a contradiction, he's not impossible. You are the one who transposed the meaning from the nature of the concept to who points it out.
WRONG. You argument is based on whether the contradiction can be thought up.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
If you want change the argument - and really you should - then please make that clear and present it in its new form. But the argument as it stands at the moment is based on what we can think up.
Joe: I don't have to, unless you show me the contradiction I have every right assume he's not. I have a conception of God it's your burden to show it's contradictory
It is a free country, you can assume anything you like. Just do not imagine your assumptions are going to stand up to scrutiny in an argument.
All you are doing here is shifting the burden of proof. You define God as necessary, and declare the atheist has to prove God is impossible, rather than you proving he exists.
Joe: No you can't. There is a contradiction. Budy is not necessary. It's contingent upon bunny parents.
I am talking about the necessary Easter bunny. By definition, the necessary Easter bunny is necessary, not contingent.
Pix
Joe: Of course it is. Tere is no contradiction in the god concept.
If there is no necessarty God, then the existence of a necessary God contradicts the nature of reality. It is as simple as that.
Joe: then why can't you find a contradiction? You are wrong, God is entirely consistent with how we find the universe, fine tuning argumet is an example. spike to this above about qualities of the universe. .
God is only consistent with the universe if this is a universe where God exists. If this is a universe where there is no God, then the existence of a necessary God is impossible.
Pix
Joe, modes of existence are not confined to contingent, necessary, and impossible. The problem is your definition of God. If you insist that God must be necessary, then you are defining God into existence. But that isn't valid logic. You can't make something exist simply by defining it such that it must exist (which is exactly what your definition of God does).
The point is that your argument is predicated on what we can conceive. That is; whether God exists is determined by what people can think up. I think that that is nonsense. Whether God exists or not does NOT depend on what people think - unless your God is imaginary of course!--pix
that is a totally ludicrous argument. All arguments are made by people so? there is no rule of logic ageist that. Reason is always limited to ji,am imderstamdomg.
Joe: that is a totally ludicrous argument. All arguments are made by people so? there is no rule of logic ageist that. Reason is always limited to ji,am imderstamdomg.
Sure arguments are conceived but that is not what I am talking about. No real logic is based on a premise of what we can think of like yours is.
Pix
im-skeptical said...
Joe, modes of existence are not confined to contingent, necessary, and impossible.
these are the only modes of being, you don't name one I notice..
The problem is your definition of God. If you insist that God must be necessary, then you are defining God into existence.
the standard defection of God is and always has been necessary and not contingent, it's in the Bible.
But that isn't valid logic. You can't make something exist simply by defining it such that it must exist (which is exactly what your definition of God does).
How can it be defining God into existence when the corollary which I have always acknowledged is that God could be impassable.
that should say impossible. I say God is either necessary or impossible osI can't be defining him into existence, Anyone has the righ to believe in how they think things are.
Let us say we are discussing an entity that we can call "necessary God". The "necessary God" has various properties that we might associate with God, including creating the universe, but the salient property here is that the "necessary God" is necessary.
This means that EITHER the "necessary God" is necessary and exists OR the "necessary God" is impossible and does not exist.
Why should we think the former? Merely defining the "necessary God" certainly does not make it so, we all agree on that.
Your argument is that unless we can say why the "necessary God" is impossible we should assume the former, that the "necessary God" is necessary and exists. We do not know why a "necessary God" is impossible, therefore we should assume it is possible, and therefore it is.
But we can do it the other way. We do not know why a "necessary God" is possible, therefore we should assume it is impossible, and therefore it does not exist.
And on some level you know this, so you have to phrase your argument in a way that gives the impression God does exist, because that is the conclusion you want. So it is not about whether a "necessary God" is possible, but whether any god can be conceived without contradiction. It is just rewording it, but it makes it seem your assumption that the "necessary God" exists is justified.
Pix
"these are the only modes of being, you don't name one I notice.."
- Put a NOT in front of each of those modes, and you have other possible modes of existence that you have been denying. And I did tell you that.
"the standard defection of God is and always has been necessary and not contingent, it's in the Bible."
- Yes, Joe. That's a religious definition. It's a question-begging definition that assumes God, without considering the real possibility that God might not exist.
"How can it be defining God into existence when the corollary which I have always acknowledged is that God could be impassable."
- It's not one or the other. That's a false dilemma. And yes, by saying that God's existence is not impossible (as most reasonable people would agree), without allowing any other modal possibility, you are defining God into existence.
Anonymous said...
Let us say we are discussing an entity that we can call "necessary God". The "necessary God" has various properties that we might associate with God, including creating the universe, but the salient property here is that the "necessary God" is necessary.
That's redundant. The definition of Gd is that he not be cotangent and that means he must be necessary or impossible.
This means that EITHER the "necessary God" is necessary and exists OR the "necessary God" is impossible and does not exist.
right
Why should we think the former? Merely defining the "necessary God" certainly does not make it so, we all agree on that.
yes it does. That's like saying defining a cat as a mammal does not make the cat a mammal therefor, he's not a mammal
Your argument is that unless we can say why the "necessary God" is impossible we should assume the former, that the "necessary God" is necessary and exists. We do not know why a "necessary God" is impossible, therefore we should assume it is possible, and therefore it is.
perfectly logical. suppose we are talking about swimming pools? We define a swimming pool as a depression in the ground lined with cerement and filled with water, you say defining in that manner doesn't make swimming pools exist so therefore there are none, I say that doesn't mean there are none it just means they are not made to exist by defining them, no one has defined God as that which cannot fail to exit. so you agree there are no swimming pools because I define them?
But we can do it the other way. We do not know why a "necessary God" is possible, therefore we should assume it is impossible, and therefore it does not exist.
I define God as not contingent, therefore, necessary in the sense of not being contingent, you assert that means has to exist, I never said that keeping it open to impossibility means I don't say that,
And on some level you know this, so you have to phrase your argument in a way that gives the impression God does exist, because that is the conclusion you want.
I think that is fair since I do believe that is the case. What sense would it make for me to define God as not existing when in fact I think he does?
So it is not about whether a "necessary God" is possible, but whether any god can be conceived without contradiction. It is just rewording it, but it makes it seem your assumption that the "necessary God" exists is justified.
You have yet to tell me a contradiction
3:16 AM
im-skeptical said...
"these are the only modes of being, you don't name one I notice.."
- Put a NOT in front of each of those modes, and you have other possible modes of existence that you have been denying. And I did tell you that.
that would be incoherent, contingent and necessary are opposites it makes no since to then say not contingent not necessary. those those are redundant..
"the standard defection of God is and always has been necessary and not contingent, it's in the Bible." [meant to say definition]
- Yes, Joe. That's a religious definition. It's a question-begging definition that assumes God, without considering the real possibility that God might not exist.
God is a religious construct, nothing illogical about religious
"How can it be defining God into existence when the corollary which I have always acknowledged is that God could be impassable."???
- It's not one or the other.
Of course it is. it would make no sense to say God is partly existent and partly non existent,
That's a false dilemma. And yes, by saying that God's existence is not impossible (as most reasonable people would agree), without allowing any other modal possibility, you are defining God into existence.
impossible is another modal possibility why do you
keep ignoring that? since I think God exists the I think he is ott Imposible. this is perfectly logical.
7:35 AM
Anonymous said...
"that would be incoherent, contingent and necessary are opposites it makes no since to then say not contingent not necessary. those those are redundant.."
- The opposite of contingent is NOT contingent. The opposite of necessary is NOT necessary. Something can be both not contingent and not necessary, and there is nothing incoherent about that. Consider a hypothetical object that has these properties: 1) it is not part of our universe, 2) it exists eternally, 3) it does nothing. This object simply exists, but it doesn't affect us in any way. There could be one such object, or there could be millions of them. What can we say about its mode of existence? It is not contingent, because it was never created. It is not necessary, because adding or removing any such object doesn't matter. It is not God, because it does nothing. Joe, this thing is not contingent, and not necessary, and there's nothing incoherent about conceiving such a thing. You need to recognize that you are ignoring real modal possibilities in your argument.
Metacrock I sent you an email could you respond to it
Joe: yes it does. That's like saying defining a cat as a mammal does not make the cat a mammal therefor, he's not a mammal
So then you are just defining God into existence.
Joe: perfectly logical. suppose we are talking about swimming pools? We define a swimming pool as a depression in the ground lined with cerement and filled with water, you say defining in that manner doesn't make swimming pools exist so therefore there are none,
WRONG. I said defining God in that way does not imply he exists. I am not concluding God does not exist, I am concluding we do not know either way.
Joe: I think that is fair since I do believe that is the case. What sense would it make for me to define God as not existing when in fact I think he does?
Right. You argument is based on the assumption God exists.
Joe: You have yet to tell me a contradiction
And you have yet to show there is no such contradiction.
We do not know either way. God may exist or he may not.
Pix
MC: 6. That God's existence is necessary is a good reason to believe that God is real.
In the absence of anything else, I don't think this is a reason to believe.
Because you have defined God in such a way that if he were to exist he would be necessary, does little to show that he does actually exist.
Post a Comment