Post Number:#122 March 14th, 2012, 12:30 pm
Post Number:#123 March 14th, 2012, 2:20 pm
Post Number:#124 March 14th, 2012, 3:25 pm
Post Number:#125 March 14th, 2012, 5:02 pm
Post Number:#126 March 14th, 2012, 5:41 pm
Post Number:#127 March 15th, 2012, 3:52 pm
Post Number:#128 March 16th, 2012, 12:24 am
Discordia wrote:1) Either God's existence is necessary or impossible.
2) God's existence is not impossible.
3) Therefore, God's existence is necessary.
#2 could just as well be "God's existence is possible", but the necessity of God would not rest on possibility, but actuality, because then what you're merely saying is that God's necessity is merely possible. This gets muddled in your simple syllogism because of the dichotomy you put out, which ignores the various interplays, dynamics, overlap, and relationships between contingency/possibility and actuality/necessity.Fhbradley wrote:I'm sure one would right away claim the first premise is a false dichotomy, but it isn't. Essentially, if God existed, he could not exist contingently, he would have to exist necessarily (that is, exist in all possible worlds). It would be a part of his nature, just as if abstract objects existed, they would also exist necessarily.
You have indeed not proven that his existence is necessary, because you have provided that the conditional for this necessity is his very existence:if [God] existed, [he] would also exist necessarily.
Too bad this very sentence makes the existence of that which exists necessarily contingent. In other words, all you're really saying is: "If he happens to exist, then he [necessarily] exists." Its a useless hidden tautology that proves little to nothing.If one would then want to argue God's existence is impossible to avoid the conclusion, they would have to show that the idea of God is contradictory, or at least incoherent.
The Christian G-d blatantly is, but this simply means that God is indeed not-God, and that that is the only way in which he can "exist".
Post Number:#129 March 16th, 2012, 1:48 am
Post Number:#130 March 16th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Fhbradley wrote:Well, if something is possibly necessary, it follows that it is actual. Secondly, you say my conditional makes his existence automatically contingent, but that's false. The logical particles if and then are not themselves a part of the statement 'God exists'. Rather, these logical particles merely set up implication to deduce logical consequences.
To say then, if p, does not entail p is itself a contingent thing.
Also, the term 'if' usually implies epistemic uncertainty, which is why I think you were led astray when thinking that 'if' implies contingency. Usually this would be expressed as 'if x is the case, then y".
Here, 'if' suggests that this speaker does not know whether or not x is true. Of course, not knowing x does not mean ~x.
But you should give some justification for the claim that the Christian God is blatantly contradictory.
I don't think the traditional arguments for Atheism work anymore, especially the 'problem of evil' and the notion that God's knowing that p implies that necessarily p and hence there is no free-will.
Post Number:#131 March 16th, 2012, 3:40 pm
Post Number:#132 March 17th, 2012, 6:50 am
Post Number:#133 March 17th, 2012, 12:10 pm
Post Number:#134 March 17th, 2012, 2:03 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
The November book of the month is On the Internet by Hubert L. Dreyfus. Pick it up, read it and discuss it with us as a group!