RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 14, 2017 at 9:00 pm
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2017 at 9:09 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. It's possible a Necessary Being exists.
2. What's possibly necessarily, then necessarily.
3. Therefore a Necessary Being exists.
2 is proven by model logic.
As for 1 there is nothing irrational and impossible about a necessary being existing, it's possible in the same way unicorns are possible in some possible world.
And 3 then follows.
How did you prove that it is possible that a necessary being exists?
And, even if that is a possibility, how did you get to it being a necessity?
You have some 'splaining to do...
And let me add, to further sink your argument, that Alvin Plantinga, foremost supporter of the Modal Ontological argument, said this about this argument, "although the first premise is not rationally established, it is not contrary to reason".
"Not contrary to reason". Well, isn't that a real strong statement....
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
