(February 11, 2018 at 9:15 am)SteveII 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.
You are confused because you still don't have the terminology down. I said that "if God exists, he exists necessarily". That means he is not contingent. Think about it--if God exists in the actual world, there are no set of contingent facts you can tinker with in a possible world (which are the rules to "possible world" semantics) where God does not exist because you have already established that his existence does not rely on any contingent facts.
So God is, by definition, necessary (according to what you just argued).
Quote:You have failed to explain why the universe is not contingent (like Rickle's said it was). 'Contingent' means caused by something else.
Yes, and I agree, that per the definition that contingency has to do with dependencies (not just causal, by the way), then the universe is contingent. But it is not necessarily contingent on God.