Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A child might think that he can fly if he just flapped his arms hard enough because he doesn't know it's impossible. "It's possible as far as I know" is not the same as "It's possible".How doesn’t it? As long as you don’t know everything, there always remains a possibility that you’re wrong about thinking God isn’t possible.
A child might think that he can fly if he just flapped his arms hard enough because he doesn't know it's impossible. "It's possible as far as I know" is not the same as "It's possible".
By "God" I mean a maximally great being. God would be the only necessary being upon whom everything else depends. The universe would be contingent and God alone would be necessary. God would be the cause of the universe, the source of moral values, the source of rationality, the source of beauty, and the source of personality. God would be "the good".
God would be all powerful and all knowing. His character would be the very standard of justice. Everything in creation would be related to him and it would be impossible to understand anything rightly without understanding its relation to him.
Is it possible that God exists? Or is it impossible? Explain your answer.
A child might think that he can fly if he just flapped his arms hard enough because he doesn't know it's impossible. "It's possible as far as I know" is not the same as "It's possible".
Argument from ignorance. Just because you don’t see why a god’s existence is necessarily false, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Therefore your conclusion is obviously false.God is logically possible so long as God's existence is not necessarily false. I don't see why God's existence would be necessarily false. Therefore God's existence is possible.
But I'm not claiming to know whether God is possible or impossible. Just because I don't personally know, doesn't mean I should accept that it is in fact possible.In order know an all knowing God isn’t possible you have to be the very thing you’re trying to say isn’t possible. Knowledge is the key in both our examples.
Just because I don’t know if a square circle is possible doesn’t mean that it’s possible. Your describing an argument from ignorance.How doesn’t it? As long as you don’t know everything, there always remains a possibility that you’re wrong about thinking God isn’t possible.
Arbitrarily limiting the argument to logical possibility is dishonest.Please see post #114 - Is God's Existence Possible?
You're talking here about physical impossibility. This thread is about logical impossibility. There's is nothing logically impossible about a child flying by flapping his arms.
Doesn't matter. My point is about what we don't know. Until we know everything about every aspect of reality, we can't know that nothing in reality is logically inconsistent with a God. Even Augustine argued against the Ontological argument by pointing out that we don't know enough about God. He basically said that only God Himself could make the argument because it would require omniscience to know whether it was possible to begin with.Please see post #114 - Is God's Existence Possible?
You're talking here about physical impossibility. This thread is about logical impossibility. There's is nothing logically impossible about a child flying by flapping his arms.
Just because I don’t know if a square circle is possible doesn’t mean that it’s possible. Your describing an argument from ignorance.
Doesn't matter. My point is about what we don't know. Until we know everything about every aspect of reality, we can't know that nothing in reality is logically inconsistent with a God. Even Augustine argued against the Ontological argument by pointing out that we don't know enough about God. He basically said that only God Himself could make the argument because it would require omniscience to know whether it was possible to begin with.
Part of me would like ths to be OK, and part of me struggles. I was quite happy to argue that God was before existence, and after existence and therefore beyond existence. I find that a lot more compelling than the argument here which in some sense smells like sophistry and and seems somewhat of a circumlocution, and at very least confuses the 'idea of God' with God.Well lets begin there and if you think we've begun dealing with an impossible God, let me know. Here's the argument in simple expression:
Notes:
- God's existence is possible.
- If God's existence is possible, then God exists in some possible world.
- If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in all possible worlds.
- If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
- If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
Premise (2) is just a technical explanation of the meaning of premise (1). A "possible world" is what philosophers mean by a "hypothetical situation".
This argument depends on a right understanding of "possibility" (which we've discussed in other posts). If something is logically possible then it is not necessarily false.
This argument also depends on a right understanding of "God". "God" is a logically necessary being. If he exists, then he must exist and it would be inconceivable for him to not exist. His non-existence would be just as inconceivable as 2+2=5.
If a logically necessary being exists in some possible world, then he exists in all possible worlds because that's what it means to be a necessary being.
So if it's possible for God to exist, then God certainly exists.
But I'm not claiming to know whether God is possible or impossible. Just because I don't personally know, doesn't mean I should accept that it is in fact possible.
Not everyone does. For those people, is a square circle possible, while for someone who does know it isn’t?We do know a square circle is impossible.
Yes you are:My argument is that if God's existence is possible then God exists by definition. I'm not arguing that God exists by definition.
Right here^^^ Your definition of God includes his existence.I don't see how we could understand God as anything other than a logically necessary being....
My frustration with the modal ontological argument is that it appears to conflate epistemological and ontological possibility. I appreciate the argument and I think it's insightful for grasping the notion of necessity, since the S5 logic behind it is clever: if there is a possible world where a necessary being exists, then that necessary being exists in all possible worlds, simply because of what is meant by necessity.
However, even we accept logic as a guide to ontology (which some do not), I do not see how we can conclusively determine whether there could be a possible world where a necessary being exists. Theoretically someone could demonstrate that the concept of God is incoherent and that therefore God is logically impossible, but our failure thus far to provide such a demonstration does not actually mean that there is a possible world where a necessary being exists. I do not think we can cross that epistemological boundary and say that the model ontological argument succeeds.
Despite being an admirer of ontological reasoning in general, I'm voting with the atheists in the poll, since in the context of the model ontological argument, "it's possible that God exists" is a much stronger claim than I am willing to make.
You should know, since I’ve never said that I believe that a god isn’t possible.That’s fine. ToddnotTodd seemed pretty certain that God isn’t possible, but maybe he means he doesn’t know for sure. Idk
Argument from ignorance. Just because you don’t see why a god’s existence is necessarily false, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Therefore your conclusion is obviously false.
Now, you could turn this around if you can show evidence that a god’s existence can not be necessarily false.
So what’s that evidence?
Just because I don’t know if a square circle is possible doesn’t mean that it’s possible. Your describing an argument from ignorance.
Arbitrarily limiting the argument to logical possibility is dishonest.
Show that there can’t be a universal physyical property that precludes a god.
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?