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.
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.
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?
You should know, since I’ve never said that I believe that a god isn’t possible.
You're right, it was Aquinas. Taken from this: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.
First off, I’ve never said that “a god exists” is necessarily false.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.
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.Logical possibility has nothing to do with God's coherence with reality. It has to do with the internal coherence of the concept "God".
I realize that. A background in Philosophy could help you.At this point I really have no idea what you're talking about.
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.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.
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.
I realize that. A background in Philosophy could help you.
I have a degree in it as well.I have a degree in it. I think it's you who needs to study up.
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.
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.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.
I have a degree in it as well.
And... back at ya...
If "God exists" is not necessarily false then "God exists" is possible. These are logical corollaries.
That's not true. For "God exists" to be possible it just needs to be that "God exists" is not necessarily false.
Again you seem to be getting at something like "physically possible". I don't think you've grasped the concept of logical possibility.
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.
I get what you’re doing here, but a physical book is a bit different than an eternal cause of the universe.
thats cool.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.
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).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.
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?
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?