(August 6, 2024 at 10:10 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You not accepting a premise doesn't make the next premise a fallacy. It just means that you don't accept a premise. In this case, the premises you've decided to reject and consider circular are a bare bones statement of the s5 theory of modal logic.
I don't think it's accurate to say that any arbitrary definition would work - because it's really just the one thing or quality or attribute or x that the argument works -on-. Necessity. You could do away with omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection..for example....and it would not impact the argument - though it would certainly disappoint some christians. Frankly, you could discard those things for an existent god and it would still be a christian problem - not a god problem or a logical problem.
Why is it possible that a God is necessary? My philosophy skills never rose above undergraduate electives.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
