Supernatural being possibly necessary doesn't make it so, especially when we can't show the supernatural exists.The argument is if something is possibly NECESSARY, then it is NECESSARILY true.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Supernatural being possibly necessary doesn't make it so, especially when we can't show the supernatural exists.The argument is if something is possibly NECESSARY, then it is NECESSARILY true.
It is a defeater in the sense that, in order for the conclusion to follow, we have to assume the truth of a premise which is equivalent to the conclusion.This is like saying "it is possible that the victim has multiple gunshot wounds" is equivalent to saying "it is possible the victim was shot more than one time". It doesn't matter what is being said, the question is whether or not the premises are true. If the premises are true then the conclusion follows whether you like it or not. You are right, they are equivalent, but if it is true then it is true based on reality, not based how we phrase it.
If I say "adi2d's existence is possibly necessary", that is equivalent to "adi2d's existence is necessary"....the only problem is, both statements are FALSE and it is false because the statements do not reflect reality.
I've seen you make the same case before as if that is a defeater of the argument, which is rather dubious, because it isn't.
This is simply a matter of your own preference. I say that good properties are "great making", and I'd imagine this would strike most people as intuitively obvious- if X is, for instance, more wise or prudent than Y, all else being equal its pretty clear that X is in some sense "greater" than Y.The only problem is outside of knowledge, power, presence, and benevolence, there are no more great making properties.
What does it mean to be maximally just, to be maximally powerful, to be maximally good? These are all vague phrases, not just maximal justice- if you have a problem, you have a problem with all of them and like above, you can't have your cake and eat it too.Well, its been already explained to that prudence has no barren on a MGB, so why you continue to use it, I don't know. My question is, what does it mean to have maximal justice? Give me an example of maximal justice.
Which would be a case where subjectivity has no part of it. In any case, the point still stands; being maximally great in one respect entails being less than maximally great in another, just as being perfect for one thing entails being imperfect for something else. Maximal greatness in every respect, or absolute perfection, are contradictory no less than being all black and all white all over.Nice back-track. You originally said "it is a perfect day for ice fishing; but terrible day for swimming"...and all I did was point out how SUBJECTIVE the example is, as I may like swimming in ice water for all you know, so it isn't a terrible day for swimming to me. Now you are giving a scenario at which there is no ice at all, so of course it is a bad day for ice fishing.
Care to try again, maybe actually address the point this time?Yeah, I expect a MGB do be veryyyyy cautious with his creations...his creations may suddenly surprise him with something, despite the fact that he is omniscient. His creations may hide from him, despite him being omnipresent. Yeah, he should be veryyy cautious. Very prudent.
Ah, so you're too scared to do a one-on-one debate, out in the open where everyone can see it? Can't say I'm surprised.Forget about it then. Open challenge to anyone else then.
The answer is-Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise His heel. The one great central truth of all prophecy the coming of One, Who, though he should suffer, should in the end crush the head of the old serpent, the Devil.
But, where are we to open this book? Where are we to break into this circle of the Zodiacal signs?
Through the Precession of the Equinoxes the sun gradually shifts its position a little each year, till in about every 2000 years it begins the year in a different sign. This was foreseen; and it was also foreseen that succeeding generations would not know when and where the sun began its course, and where the teaching of this Heavenly Book commenced, and where we were to open its first page. Hence the Sphinx was invented as a memorial.
It had the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion, to tell us this book, written in the Heavens, began with the sign Virgo (Virgin), and will end with the sign Leo (Lion). The word Sphinxis from the Greek Sphingo, to join; because it binds together the two ends of this circle of the heavens.
The number of the signs is twelve, the number of governmental perfection or rule: It is the number or factor of all numbers connected with government: whether by Tribes or Apostles, or in measurements of time,or in things which have to do with government in the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: And God saw that it was good.
JohnB21
Can't argue with logic like that
Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal?
(Human, all too Human)
Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal? (Human, all too Human) Simurgh.
What formed men into animals is the transgression of Eve with Lucifer and we now pay the price on this fallen earth; Flesh Age, which is shortly coming to an end Man will not be changed back into animal, but be transformed. Ecc 12:7
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
You will need to see my website to learn more. There is not enough room here.
JohnB
It is a defeater in the sense that, in order for the conclusion to follow, we have to assume the truth of a premise which is equivalent to the conclusion.
This is called "begging the question".
Instead of making the complete argument, all we have to do is just simply say "it is possible for God to exist", which would imply that God exists. Either way, either the statement is true or false...if it is true, then it follows that God exists, and vice versa.
Still begging the question?
It is not necessary for God to exist, therefore God likely does not exist.
It is not necessary for me to be a millionaire to be happy, since I am happy, there are no millionaires.
This is simply a matter of your own preference. I say that good properties are "great making", and I'd imagine this would strike most people as intuitively obvious- if X is, for instance, more wise or prudent than Y, all else being equal its pretty clear that X is in some sense "greater" than Y.
Of course, you're essentially conceding a flaw in your own argument here- that what makes something great is probably subjective, and so a "maximally great being" is not something which can be properly defined in the first place (yet another flaw to add to the laundry list).,
What does it mean to be maximally just, to be maximally powerful, to be maximally good? These are all vague phrases, not just maximal justice- if you have a problem, you have a problem with all of them and like above, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Which would be a case where subjectivity has no part of it. In any case, the point still stands; being maximally great in one respect entails being less than maximally great in another, just as being perfect for one thing entails being imperfect for something else. Maximal greatness in every respect, or absolute perfection, are contradictory no less than being all black and all white all over.
Ah, so you're too scared to do a one-on-one debate, out in the open where everyone can see it? Can't say I'm surprised.
Perhaps I should be more clear...
Based on the evidence for natural processes like evolution, it is not necessary for God to exist. There is no reason to think that things couldn't just happen naturally.
---
You see, people? See this position? This is a far cry from, "maybe God could have used evolution". See the difference? Yet certain people argued me down over whether or not people actually holds this position. Pathetic.
You see, people? See this position? This is a far cry from, "maybe God could have used evolution". See the difference? Yet certain people argued me down over whether or not people actually holds this position. Pathetic.
No. Here we are going in a circle again. "Possibly X->X" is not a theorem in ANY system of modal logic. You can not infer that X exists from X possibly exists. Which is why Plantinga requires, as a premise, that it is possibly necessary that God exists. But then, that is equivalent to God necessarily existing.Instead of making the complete argument, all we have to do is just simply say "it is possible for God to exist", which would imply that God exists.
Nope, just plain old invalid. Unfortunately, this is the dilemma for ANY deductive proof of God's existence: beg the question, or be invalid. For if "God exists" appears in the conclusion of the argument, it MUST appear in one of the premises, else the argument would have to be invalid. But then, having God's existence figure as a premise in an argument for God's existence is bound to be question-begging.Still begging the question?
No. Here we are going in a circle again. "Possibly X->X" is not a theorem in ANY system of modal logic. You can not infer that X exists from X possibly exists. Which is why Plantinga requires, as a premise, that it is possibly necessary that God exists. But then, that is equivalent to God necessarily existing.
Nope, just plain old invalid. Unfortunately, this is the dilemma for ANY deductive proof of God's existence: beg the question, or be invalid. For if "God exists" appears in the conclusion of the argument, it MUST appear in one of the premises, else the argument would have to be invalid. But then, having God's existence figure as a premise in an argument for God's existence is bound to be question-begging.
In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.