tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post5323906356595440284..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Disproof of God DisprovedRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-42800275964021171972014-04-12T21:44:52.497-04:002014-04-12T21:44:52.497-04:00Hi Dave! Strictly speaking, P1 doesn't follow ...Hi Dave! Strictly speaking, P1 doesn't follow from anything in the argument before it; it's a stipulation of Christian doctrine. The objector wanted to assume Christian theism in order to disprove it (he's not, by P1, committing himself to God's actual existence, but rather to what would be the case were the Christian God to exist). On the Christian conception of God, the traditional/most popular conceptions are that God exists necessarily (that is, that it is impossible that God not exist or cease to exist), and, it then follows that if triunity is a necessary property of God (as it seems to be, given orthodox Christianity plus God's necessary existence), then God is necessarily triune.<br /><br />Here's what I mean: Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity, and these three persons (Father, Spirit, Son) are separate from each other as such but are united in the same single being (not type of being, but actual being), God. That thesis means that God wouldn't be the God of Christianity were God not to be a Trinity (because then the Spirit wouldn't be God, or the Son wouldn't be; or else there wouldn't be three persons; or else there would be more than one God--all of these are incompatible with orthodox Christian theism). Since this is what it means, in essence, to be God, and since God is necessary, then his essential elements are necessary also. Does that help at all?Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-25750064777862656142014-04-12T13:08:32.253-04:002014-04-12T13:08:32.253-04:00I know this is late, but I'm wondering how P1 ...I know this is late, but I'm wondering how P1 follows? How can we say that God is NECESSARILY triune? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09680680836232149420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-63494194116381186812011-09-02T13:36:01.580-04:002011-09-02T13:36:01.580-04:00Thanks for your comment Jenny! I agree with your a...Thanks for your comment Jenny! I agree with your assessment of the original article. In the somewhat lengthy discussion that followed the article, I noticed he explicitly denies any analogous relationship to the "rock problem." The issue, however, is that the solutions are precisely the same, or at least rely on the same idea. Saying God can do any logically possible state of affairs, and then proclaiming that it is a logically possible state of affairs that God actualizes a state of affairs he does not actualize (since it is logically possible that we actualize such a state of affairs, and we are not God), seems to be a reductio against (2) at worst, not God's existence.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-44323794095154766552011-09-01T23:01:40.074-04:002011-09-01T23:01:40.074-04:00Formal logic isn't my strong point, but I thin...Formal logic isn't my strong point, but I think you have good points, especially about step 2 of the "disproof." Aside, I read the 'Urban Philosophy'<br /> post, and it seemed rather childish for the author to resort to what appeared to me to be a fancy version of "If God's all-powerful, then He can create a rock that's too heavy for Him to lift."Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11046641822669890457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-33478136363490278982011-08-27T20:49:46.814-04:002011-08-27T20:49:46.814-04:00It seems to me that origin essentialism is at leas...It seems to me that origin essentialism is at least plausibly true. As far as to states of affairs, a possible world is a complete description of reality, including truths of how God himself acts in these worlds. I think the actualization of states of affairs should really be termed as Plantinga and others have: "strong" actualization, which is God acting causally, and "weak" actualization, which is God instantiating or "starting up" the universe to "bring it about" that some agent freely causes a certain action to occur.<br /><br />So in that case, origin essentialism really applies to a free creature's free acts, since as you suggest, defining "limited agent X performs an action Y" and then immediately postulating that some <i>other</i>, non-X agent performed Y seems to be logically impossible, even if it is not due to some extra virtue or deficiency in power. Very interesting.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-69247314309022879862011-08-27T02:31:40.213-04:002011-08-27T02:31:40.213-04:00I'm curious about whether origin essentialism ...I'm curious about whether origin essentialism would provide yet another problem for the argument. <br /><br />For instance, my parents brought it about that I exist, and I necessarily have the parents that I do. Nobody else even could have even potentially brought me about aside from my parents, but this is hardly in virtue of any power they possess or that others lack but the relation I bear to them. <br /><br />I think similarly with God. If a given non-triune being can bring about a particular state of affairs, God himself could not have brought about that very same state of affairs because that potential state of affairs, were it to be actualized, would bear a necessary relation to that non-triune being which would have, in that case, brought it about, and this relation doesn't indicate any lack of power whatsoever (like with the case with my parents).<br /><br />This assumes that origin essentialism applies to states of affairs as opposed to merely objects, but off the top of my head I don't see any reason to find this implausible. Thoughts?Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01731177345815382468noreply@blogger.com