(February 11, 2018 at 9:15 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(February 11, 2018 at 8:33 am)Grandizer Wrote: Yes, and that is the flaw in Steve's wording earlier. If one can conceive of God not existing in a possible world, then that makes God not necessary.
But of course, in order for arguments like the argument from contingency and the modal ontological argument to work, God has to be deemed a necessary being in the eyes of theists defending those arguments. So perhaps Steve shouldn't have said anything about conceiving, and just stuck to God by definition is necessary, lol.
And, yeah, theists pretty much force a difference between God and the universe in terms of modality when there is none, because they have to. Otherwise, how else would they explain the existence of the universe by appealing to the one God that they adhere to? If the universe can exist independent of God, then there's no point to God, and they can't have that.
I think Matt D. brings up a point worth noting about the argument from contingency by noting the distinction between causal contingency and sustained contingency. The argument itself is not an argument for sustained contingency...Not that that is its only problem Ofc. We have the Bible to fill in those blanks I guess. 😏
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6esL6yz52Q
I can't listen to 35 minutes waiting for one point. Do you have a timestamp with what you are talking about?