(December 17, 2015 at 11:56 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(December 17, 2015 at 10:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: A better form of an argument goes on the lines like this.
It's possible a necessary being exists.
What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily.
Therefore a necessary being exists.
The only premise that can be argued in this argument to be wrong, is the first one. However, when it's said it's possible, it's not about it may or may not exist sort of possible. It's rather about it being logically possible. And whatever is logically possible to be necessarily, in model logic, has been proven to be necessarily.
In the second premise, how did you get from "possible," to "probable," let alone "true"?
Moreover, a logical argument is not a sufficient condition for demonstrating objective existence. If you have a logical argument, and yet the evidence conflicts with it, it is the argument that is faulty, not the evidence. You will never be able to logic your god into existence and it's a testament to the paucity of actual evidence for any god that theists are reduced to this.
You might want to look up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)
