RE: Terrible Atheist Argument #1
December 3, 2013 at 12:26 am
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2013 at 12:27 am by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
I'm taking it as a reductio ad absurdum, which is your intention, right MFM? But like I suspected, your P2 is not a proper application of S5 in the same way as the ontological argument.
To make it explicit, given S5,
possibly necessary -> necessary.
So "Possibly Necessary God" -> "Necessary God"
But your argument does not argue that metaphysical naturalism is possibly necessarily true. In fact no claim of necessity is made anywhere in your argument, right?
Mere possibility does not carry the MOA.
To make it explicit, given S5,
possibly necessary -> necessary.
So "Possibly Necessary God" -> "Necessary God"
But your argument does not argue that metaphysical naturalism is possibly necessarily true. In fact no claim of necessity is made anywhere in your argument, right?
Mere possibility does not carry the MOA.
