Is God's Existence Possible?

[Tree of Life]

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.

Logical possibility has nothing to do with God's coherence with reality. It has to do with the internal coherence of the concept "God".

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes you are:

Right here^^^ Your definition of God includes his existence.

So your argument starts with his existence just by using your definition of God.

You can remedy this by removing "a logically necessary being" from the definition of God we use for the purpose of your logical argument. Shall we do that and run the argument again?

God's logical necessity is inherent to the concept of God. We cannot conceive of a God that would be logically contingent.

This does not mean that God thereby exists.

This means that if you say that God possibly exists then you have logically committed yourself to his actual existence.

 

[Chriliman]

You should know, since I’ve never said that I believe that a god isn’t possible.

In my mind, since I don’t know everything, that means there’s literally an infinite amount of possibilities that I haven't even thought of and I don’t see why the possibly of God can’t be at least one that I have thought of.

 

[Moral Orel]

Augustine lived centuries before the ontological argument was first formulated by Anselm. Are you sure he's the theologian you're thinking of? It was Aquinas who was a critic of Anselm (though for different reasons), but I'm not sure what argument Augustine might have been responding to here. If you have a citation here, I'd be interested in seeing it.

You're right, it was Aquinas. Taken from this:

Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.​

Summa Theologiae

 

[ToddNotTodd]

To claim that a proposition is necessarily false is quite a strong claim. If you're going to suggest that "God exists" is necessarily false, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this. Otherwise we may assume that "God exists" is not necessarily false.

First off, I’ve never said that “a god exists” is necessarily false.

Second, you don’t seem to understand the burden of proof. If you’re positing that a god is possible, you have to show there’s nothing preventing a god in any universe.

So it’s up to you to show that there’s no universal physical property that precludes a god’s existence. If you can’t, then the question remains unanswerable.

 

[Moral Orel]

Logical possibility has nothing to do with God's coherence with reality. It has to do with the internal coherence of the concept "God".

And the concept "God" must describe something within reality (notice I didn't say "physical reality") and therefore you would have to know everything about what it means to be God to say that the concept is logically coherent. You haven't, and can't, describe everything about God, so you can't say that you know there are no logical inconsistencies. It might be possible as far as anyone knows, but that isn't the same thing as possible.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

At this point I really have no idea what you're talking about.

I realize that. A background in Philosophy could help you.

 

[Chriliman]

Why shouldn’t we consider anything possible, until we know it’s not possible?

Sure, once we know somethings impossible, it may make us skeptical of other possibilities, but does that mean we shouldn’t seriously consider the other possibilities? I say no.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why shouldn’t we consider anything possible, until we know it’s not possible?

Sure, once we know somethings impossible, it may make us skeptical of other possibilities, but does that mean we shouldn’t seriously consider the other possibilities? I say no.

I say that devoid of evidence for or against the existence of X, the only logical position is to say that the existence of X is undecided.

Here’s an example. There exists on the other side of the universe a planet with a library. In this library, there exists a book with absolute proof that no gods can exist.

Using your logic, sine you can’t prove that it’s not possible that this book exists, then we should assume it’s true. Therefore, no god can exist.

I mean, there’s nothing that makes this scenario logically impossible.

 

[Tree of Life]

First off, I’ve never said that “a god exists” is necessarily false.

If "God exists" is not necessarily false then "God exists" is possible. These are logical corollaries.

Second, you don’t seem to understand the burden of proof. If you’re positing that a god is possible, you have to show there’s nothing preventing a god in any universe.

That's not true. For "God exists" to be possible it just needs to be that "God exists" is not necessarily false.

So it’s up to you to show that there’s no universal physical property that precludes a god’s existence. If you can’t, then the question remains unanswerable.

Again you seem to be getting at something like "physically possible". I don't think you've grasped the concept of logical possibility.

 

[Tree of Life]

I realize that. A background in Philosophy could help you.

I have a degree in it. I think it's you who needs to study up.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have a degree in it. I think it's you who needs to study up.

I have a degree in it as well.

And... back at ya...

 

[Tree of Life]

And the concept "God" must describe something within reality (notice I didn't say "physical reality") and therefore you would have to know everything about what it means to be God to say that the concept is logically coherent.

Concepts don't have to be real. We can conceptualize many things that are not real. And we do not have to know everything about God in order to conclude whether or not the concept of God is logically coherent.

You haven't, and can't, describe everything about God, so you can't say that you know there are no logical inconsistencies. It might be possible as far as anyone knows, but that isn't the same thing as possible.

It's fine if you want to say that you don't know whether or not it's possible that God exists. But this seems to me to be too much of a retreat.

 

[Chriliman]

I say that devoid of evidence for or against the existence of X, the only logical position is to say that the existence of X is undecided.

I agree with you here, but many would argue that there is at least as much evidence that points to a creator as there is pointing to a multiverse or singularity. It really just comes down to each individuals threshold of what it takes for them to accept one proposition over another.

Here’s an example. There exists on the other side of the universe a planet with a library. In this library, there exists a book with absolute proof that no gods can exist.

Using your logic, sine you can’t prove that it’s not possible that this book exists, then we should assume it’s true. Therefore, no god can exist.

I mean, there’s nothing that makes this scenario logically impossible.

I get what you’re doing here, but a physical book is a bit different than an eternal cause of the universe.

 

[Tree of Life]

I have a degree in it as well.

And... back at ya...

Then I think we'll have to agree that we don't have enough common ground to be able to meaningfully discuss this. I don't believe you understand the concept of logical possibility and you think that I'm illegitimately distinguishing between logical and physical possibility. We should just leave it at that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If "God exists" is not necessarily false then "God exists" is possible. These are logical corollaries.

And you need to show that “god exists” isn’t necessarily false.

That's not true. For "God exists" to be possible it just needs to be that "God exists" is not necessarily false.

As I’ve been saying. Show that “god exists” isn’t necessarily false, so you meet your burden of proof.

Again you seem to be getting at something like "physically possible". I don't think you've grasped the concept of logical possibility.

You don’t seem to have grasped that “logically possible” relies on physical possibility. Square circles are logically impossible because the physical properties of a circle preclude a square from having them.

Do you actually believe that logically possible things have no basis in physical reality?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I agree with you here, but many would argue that there is at least as much evidence that points to a creator as there is pointing to a multiverse or singularity. It really just comes down to each individuals threshold of what it takes for them to accept one proposition over another.

No one should believe in a multiverse or a singularity without sufficient evidence. Same goes for a god.

I get what you’re doing here, but a physical book is a bit different than an eternal cause of the universe.

But the book proves that there isn’t a god...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then I think we'll have to agree that we don't have enough common ground to be able to meaningfully discuss this. I don't believe you understand the concept of logical possibility and you think that I'm illegitimately distinguishing between logical and physical possibility. We should just leave it at that.

thats cool.

 

[durangodawood]

God's logical necessity is inherent to the concept of God. We cannot conceive of a God that would be logically contingent.

This does not mean that God thereby exists.

This means that if you say that God possibly exists then you have logically committed yourself to his actual existence.

Basically youre saying: its possible that there's a necessary. I reject this because youre mixing logic terms that are defined in terms of each other. We end up with an endless recursion when we do this. (Read the definitions you provided earlier #83).

It makes as much sense as saying its possible that the impossible exists.

So where does that leave us?

 

[Tree of Life]

Well I have conceived of a God who may, or may not, exist. So have many other people. The question is open.

So where does that leave us?

If you haven't conceived of a God that is logically necessary then you only think you've conceived of God.