fr0d0 Wrote:I don't think you're addressing the problem in full toro. It's what underpins the point that makes it valid. Neither in Sagans Dragon nor toros world are there any coherant propositions, unless you substitute the Xtian God for those words.
Please explain what was logically incoherent and why.
MysticKnight Wrote:But if we say God is not an impossible thing for sure, then the argument states God exists.
I think God being possible is obvious, while God possibly not existing is not obvious. Therefore this argument is still good argument, if you accept that God being possible is obvious, while God possibly not existing is not obvious (it maybe he is a necessary existence).
You need to remember, these two statements are premises of the argument. So you cannot say that we can't premise God possibly does not exist because the argument states he exists. That's a fallacy:
You are assuming the outcome of the argument under one premise as a premise for why one can't make a different premise at the beginning of the argument.
This is where the term 'possible' in modal logic becomes misleading. You keep assuming one premise is valid but another isn't because the other is valid. That makes no sense. Both are valid premises unless you are assuming the outcome to the statement at question.
You cannot say "it is impossible for God to not-exist" and still pretend you are leaving the question open. If God's non-existence is presupposed to be impossible, that means you have presupposed God exists. You can't have it both ways. Either you assume God exists/doesn't exist, or you have no answer.
One might actually argue you can premise both propositions. This however leads to the outcome that God is contradictory and therefore doesn't exist.
