Is God's Existence Possible?

[durangodawood]

If your question is "is that where you're going with this?" then the answer is "no".

Many things are possible that are not actual - such as a tea kettle orbiting Jupiter or a unicorn existing somewhere in the universe. To be clear, let's define unicorn as "equine animal with one horn."

I could have been more clear earlier.
I'm asking about this:

Me: And for [deciding on possibility], knowledge of the object in question is unnecessary?
You: That's right.

If so, then anything is possible.
Do you agree that anything is possible?

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm asking about this:

Me: And for [deciding on possibility], knowledge of the object in question is unnecessary?
You: That's right.

It depends on what you mean by "knowledge".

If you're talking about "knowledge" in the technical, epistemological sense then knowledge would be quite unnecessary. If the only things that are possible are things that you know exist then the whole notion of possibility is irrelevant. In that scenario, nothing at all is possible. There are only actualities and impossibilities. But real life is much more complicated than this. There are legitimate possibilities. I don't know what I'm going to have for dinner, but it's possible that I might have a hamburger.

If you mean that you need to have some experience of a thing in order to determine whether or not its existence is possible then this is equally limited. We have no experience of extra terrestrial life, but we would not usually thereby say that extra terrestrial life is impossible. And we would not say that we cannot know whether or not extra terrestrial life is possible.

If you mean that you need to be able to imagine a thing or circumstance in order to determine whether or not it's possible, that's fair. But we can easily imagine something like a unicorn. Just take a horse and put a horn on it. We can also easily imagine some other place in the universe where a unicorn might exist. So I don't think it's too difficult to say that it's possible for a unicorn to exist somewhere in some possible world. It's possible that evolution could have worked out in such a way to develop unicorns on our planet, although this did not actually happen. Even though it didn't actually happen, it's still possible.

If you're still confused about the concept of possibility, you should read up on modal logic.

If so, then anything is possible.
Do you agree that anything is possible?

No. Many things are quite impossible. For example a square circle is impossible. It could not exist in any possible world. Likewise, it's impossible that the number "2" could not exist. It's also impossible that 2+2 could ever equal 5. Etc.

 

[Tree of Life]

On modal logic... Here's a helpful little summary of terms as they are used in modal logic. From wikipedia:

In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be

• possible if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false);
• necessary if it is not possibly false (i.e. true and necessarily true);
• contingent if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true);
• impossible if it is not possibly true (i.e. false and necessarily false).

 

[durangodawood]

It depends on what you mean by "knowledge".

If you're talking about "knowledge" in the technical, epistemological sense then knowledge would be quite unnecessary. If the only things that are possible are things that you know exist then the whole notion of possibility is irrelevant. In that scenario, nothing at all is possible. There are only actualities and impossibilities. But real life is much more complicated than this. There are legitimate possibilities. I don't know what I'm going to have for dinner, but it's possible that I might have a hamburger.

If you mean that you need to have some experience of a thing in order to determine whether or not its existence is possible then this is equally limited. We have no experience of extra terrestrial life, but we would not usually thereby say that extra terrestrial life is impossible. And we would not say that we cannot know whether or not extra terrestrial life is possible.

If you mean that you need to be able to imagine a thing or circumstance in order to determine whether or not it's possible, that's fair. But we can easily imagine something like a unicorn. Just take a horse and put a horn on it. We can also easily imagine some other place in the universe where a unicorn might exist. So I don't think it's too difficult to say that it's possible for a unicorn to exist somewhere in some possible world. It's possible that evolution could have worked out in such a way to develop unicorns on our planet, although this did not actually happen. Even though it didn't actually happen, it's still possible.

If you're still confused about the concept of possibility, you should read up on modal logic.



No. Many things are quite impossible. For example a square circle is impossible. It could not exist in any possible world. Likewise, it's impossible that the number "2" could not exist. It's also impossible that 2+2 could ever equal 5. Etc.

I appreciate the considered response.

So do you think the laws of physics as we understand them can be invoked to determine impossibility?

Also, you call a "square circle" an impossible thing. But its not a thing in any sense, including as just an idea. Its just a construction of words. And that construction obviously is possible, as we've both demonstrated.

 

[Tree of Life]

I appreciate the considered response.

So do you think the laws of physics as we understand them can be invoked to determine impossibility?

Only if you assume that the laws of physics are necessary (as the word is used in the literature.) If they are necessary, then they may determine other items of possibility. But if you go this route, you've already taken a position on what's necessary.

Also, you call a "square circle" an impossible thing. But its not a thing in any sense, including as just an idea. Its just a construction of words. And that construction obviously is possible, as we've both demonstrated.

Yes but that's not what's in question. The concept is impossible because "squareness" and "circularness" are mutually exclusive. We can imagine a square and a circle but we cannot even imagine a square circle. It's impossible.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm not sure you appreciate what we're talking about when we say "possible" or "impossible". We're not talking about evidence or plausibility. We're imagining whether some situation might obtain in some possible world.

For example, in another thread some posters in this thread have argued that it's possible that a tea kettle is orbiting Jupiter. There is no evidence for this. But posters here are very hesitant to say that we could prove that a tea kettle is not orbiting Jupiter. This is because it's possible that one is, even though we don't have any evidence for this and even though it's implausible.

I understand what logically possible is. a teakettle orbiting Jupiter is logically possible because there's no violation of the rules of the universe. We know what teakettles are and their physical properties. We understand how gravity affects objects in orbit.

But how can you say that magic doesn't violate a universal rule that precludes the existance of magic? I don't think it's possible to say such a thing.

 

[Tree of Life]

I understand what logically possible is. a teakettle orbiting Jupiter is logically possible because there's no violation of the rules of the universe. We know what teakettles are and their physical properties. We understand how gravity affects objects in orbit.

But how can you say that magic doesn't violate a universal rule that precludes the existance of magic? I don't think it's possible to say such a thing.

You are assuming that the laws of physics are necessary and could not possibly have been otherwise. Many people assume this, but I just want to point that out. Is that an assumption that you're willing to own?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes but that's not what's in question. The concept is impossible because "squareness" and "circularness" are mutually exclusive. We can imagine a square and a circle but we cannot even imagine a square circle. It's impossible.

I disagree that "square circle" is even a concept. You cant conceptualize it in any way. Its two words back to back, or two disconnected ideas in sequence. And thats it. "Possibility" and "impossibility" cannot even be applied to it...because there is no it to consider.

Nonsense word constructions are not concepts.

I'm getting the sense that, philosophically, everything must be considered possible, including all concepts.

 

[Steve Petersen]

What a load of sophist bovine scatolgy.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm getting the sense that, philosophically, everything must be considered possible, including all concepts.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Many things might be considered impossible. Let's look again at the terminology:

In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be

• possible if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false);
• necessary if it is not possibly false (i.e. true and necessarily true);
• contingent if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true);
• impossible if it is not possibly true (i.e. false and necessarily false).

If you assume that the universe is necessary, for example, then the Biblical God could not possibly exist. His existence would necessarily be false and thus impossible.

 

[Tree of Life]

One might argue along the following lines:

1. If atheism is true then objective moral norms are impossible.
2. Atheism is true.
3. Therefore objective moral norms are impossible.

Philosophers such as Joel Marks (who is an atheist) have concluded that the idea of objective moral norms depends upon the idea of God. If this is so, and if God does not exist, then objective moral norms would be impossible.

 

[Tree of Life]

What a load of sophist bovine scatolgy.

You sound like an engineer. Didn't do much liberal arts in college, huh?

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Many things might be considered impossible. Let's look again at the terminology:

In classical modal logic, a proposition is said to be

• possible if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false);
• necessary if it is not possibly false (i.e. true and necessarily true);
• contingent if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true);
• impossible if it is not possibly true (i.e. false and necessarily false).

If you assume that the universe is necessary, for example, then the Biblical God could not possibly exist. His existence would necessarily be false and thus impossible.

I've been trying to get you to carve away all the possible things and find out what you think is impossible.

So far the only impossibility youve proposed are non-thing / non-concepts, like "square circle".

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You are assuming that the laws of physics are necessary and could not possibly have been otherwise. Many people assume this, but I just want to point that out. Is that an assumption that you're willing to own?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I'm not confident there could exist a universe with physical laws that would allow for magic, which you can define as the breaking of physical laws. And by that I don't mean exceptions to physical laws, I mean the circumventing of them.

Are you confident in the assumption there can be a universe in which physical laws can be broken?

 

[Tree of Life]

I've been trying to get you to carve away all the possible things and find out what you think is impossible.

So far the only impossibility youve proposed are non-thing / non-concepts, like "square circle".

I assume God's existence so there are a great many things I consider to be impossible. Examples:

1. It's impossible for God to lie.
2. It's impossible for God to not exist.
3. It's impossible to thwart God's purposes.
4. Etc...

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I'm not confident there could exist a universe with physical laws that would allow for magic, which you can define as the breaking of physical laws. And by that I don't mean exceptions to physical laws, I mean the circumventing of them.

Are you confident in the assumption there can be a universe in which physical laws can be broken?

Yes. I assume God's existence and believe that physical laws and the universe are contingent. They are also subject to God's control. So God can freely work through, around, or against what we call physical laws.

 

[durangodawood]

I assume God's existence so there are a great many things I consider to be impossible. Examples:

1. It's impossible for God to lie.
2. It's impossible for God to not exist.
3. It's impossible to thwart God's purposes.
4. Etc...

Anything impossible aside from in relation to God?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes. I assume God's existence and believe that physical laws and the universe are contingent. They are also subject to God's control. So God can freely work through, around, or against what we call physical laws.

So you’re attempting to show that a god exists by first saying a god is possible. But for an atheist to believe that a god is possible they have to believe that there can exist a universe in which natural laws can be circumvented... by a god.

You do see the flaw inherent in that, right?

 

[Tree of Life]

Anything impossible aside from in relation to God?

All things are in relation to God.

But I'm sure I could find some more mundane things. I don't keep a list of impossible stuff.

 

[Tree of Life]

So you’re attempting to show that a god exists by first saying a god is possible. But for an atheist to believe that a god is possible they have to believe that there can exist a universe in which natural laws can be circumvented... by a god.

You do see the flaw inherent in that, right?

No I don't.

My argument is that if God possibly exists then God exists. It's up to you whether or not you think God's existence is possible. But I think the argument is compelling to show that people can't logically stand in the middle. They should either say that God exists or that his existence is impossible. It doesn't make logical sense to say that God might exist or that it's possible that God exists.

Keep in mind I haven't made the argument yet.