Can you imagine God?What concept of God imagines him otherwise?
You can't imagine things that are logically impossible. Like a square circle, for instance. You can imagine things that are contingent. You can't imagine things that are necessary. Things that are necessary are simply necessary. In fact, you can't conceive of a world without them. For example, try to imagine a world without logic.
So the question is whether or not God is impossible or necessary. He cannot be contingent, for then he would not be God.
Can you imagine God?
This is a misunderstanding of the logic of possibility (or modal logic). In modal logic there are three sorts of beings:
There are impossible beings - those that exist in no possible world. They logically cannot exist.
There are contingent beings - those that exist in some possible worlds but their existence is contingent upon other factors.
There are necessary beings - those that exist in all possible worlds because they are logically necessary. They must exist.
God is posited to be a necessary being. If it's possible that God exists this means that he exists in some possible worlds. But if a necessary being exists in some possible world then it exists in every possible world. And if God exists in every possible world then he exists in the actual world.
The only way to defeat this argument is to claim that it's impossible for God to exist.
Or to simply ask you to show that god is a "necessary" being...
Again, that goes along with the definition of God. If God weren't necessary then he wouldn't be God. So the question is whether God is impossible or necessary. There's really no middle ground.
Then all you've really done is try to "define" god into being. I'm afraid that's not how reality works.
Not quite. I'm saying that if you think it's possible that God exists then you are logically obliged to affirm his existence. I'm pointing out the logical flaw in those who think that God's existence is possible.
Why would I be obligated to affirm his existence just because I accept it's possible?
Why would his existence include being necessary?
Can't I just define anything as necessary? Leprechauns create rainbows, rainbows exist, therefore leprechauns necessarily exist. This is essentially a child's version of "providing an argument for existence".
The middle ground, functionally speaking, is: I dont know.Again, that goes along with the definition of God. If God weren't necessary then he wouldn't be God. So the question is whether God is impossible or necessary. There's really no middle ground.
God is defined as a "maximally great being" whose existence is necessary. A being who necessarily exists is a being on whom everything else is contingent. God would be such a being. God is the creator of everything who alone eternally exists. Therefore he is a necessary being.
In what way does this show such a being would STILL be in existence ? Where does it posit that such a being must still exist, as opposed to some point in the past only ? IOW ... what does it say about the being dying, for example ?God is defined as a "maximally great being" whose existence is necessary. A being who necessarily exists is a being on whom everything else is contingent. God would be such a being. God is the creator of everything who alone eternally exists. Therefore he is a necessary being.
If you claim that it's possible that a necessary being like God exists then you are claiming that God exists in some possible world. But, being a necessary being, if he exists in some possible world he exists in all possible worlds. Hence, he exists in the actual world.
Any person whom you define as necessary would essentially be God. You're more than welcome to claim that God is a leprechaun. Plantinga's Ontological Argument makes no such claim.
The middle ground, functionally speaking, is: I dont know.
But I've done this. So its not impossible.....But because God is a necessary being it's actually impossible to conceive of a world in which he does not exist..
In what way does this show such a being would STILL be in existence ? Where does it posit that such a being must still exist, as opposed to some point in the past only ? IOW ... what does it say about the being dying, for example ?
Would you agree with this assessment of his reasoning ?Forget that nonsense...he's just imagining a definition for god, he hasn't demonstrated any of it. He hasn't shown that god is "maximally great" or necessary... he just claims it. I'm only mentioning this because I've always considered it the worst argument for god bar none...it's all the way at the bottom of the list.
Yes I know, but what I don't understand is how, in his train of thought, his reasoning also concludes the god as still necessarily in existence (if it concludes as much), and not just existed at some point in the past.If I said magical unicorns are maximally great and necessarily exist I've basically done the same thing. It doesn't prove existence. When we define things according to properties they have, we do it according to properties we can demonstrate...not ones we imagine they have. That's all his argument is... it's imagining god has properties that require his existence, claiming he has them, and starting from there. It's wordplay...nothing more.
YES! Perhaps the conditions of reality permit the God you describe. Perhaps they do not.This is fine. You don't know whether or not God's existence is possible.
... because the ground on either side in that context is a false dilemma, at least.The middle ground, functionally speaking, is: I dont know.
Would you agree with this assessment of his reasoning ?
Yes I know, but what I don't understand is how, in his train of thought, his reasoning also concludes the god as still necessarily in existence (if it concludes as much), and not just existed at some point in the past.
ETA: I'm asking in the context of someone (him) who would think it's valid reasoning, to explain their own reasoning. I don't find it to be valid reasoning. But it helps me to understand how/why they come to such conclusions, regardless of what I think about them.
There's not much faith in admitting "I dont know".I guess in the end is just a matter of faith on both sides...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?