There is often
confusion about God and possible worlds. If a being is contingent, it means it
exists in at least one possible world. It may perhaps exist in more than world—indeed,
in many worlds—but the key is that it will not exist in every possible world. There will be at least one—probably many more—world
in which it does not exist. If a being is necessary, then it exists in every
possible world. Also, if a being is construed as necessary, then its existence
is either impossible to be false or just plain impossible.
This has
definite application to God. Of course, if God is contingent, merely showing
that he exists in some world or other, or showing that he does not exist in one
world, doesn’t really accomplish much (except, of course, if the world under
consideration is the actual world!). However, if God is construed as necessary,
then showing that he doesn’t exist in some possible world is tantamount to
saying that he doesn’t exist at all. This is because something that holds its
existence as necessary either exists in every possible world or in no possible
world. Lacking existence in one possible world entails not existing in every
possible world; therefore, a necessarily existent God who does not exist in one
of the possible worlds does not exist in any of them—his existence is
impossible. Of course, God’s existence could always be construed as contingent,
but not without strong theological cost.
However, it’s
also important to note that this means that if God’s existence is even possible
(that is, if there is even at least one possible world in which God exists),
then he must exist, and his non-existence is impossible. So, if it can be shown
that God’s existence is possible, then every possible world is populated by
God. So what does this all mean? This means that God’s existence is either
necessary or impossible. So the next time an atheist tries to use possible
world semantics to show God doesn’t exist (this doesn’t happen too often, but
sometimes it does), unless he shows God’s existence is impossible, it simply
won’t affect your conclusion!
How is the god of classical theism falsifiable? Or do you argue that it isn't?
ReplyDeleteWell, if one were to show an internal incoherence, then that would work.
DeleteCan a being be both omnibenevolent and capable of evil?
DeleteI think it depends. On some interpretations of the question, yes. On others, no.
DeleteDepends on what? In what interpretation can a being be both omnibenevolent and evil? How are you defining those two opposing terms?
DeleteI'm not defining them at all; I didn't ask the question.
DeleteI'm asking you to define "omnibenevolence" and "evil" in such a way to make them mutually compatible that does not also render their definitions incoherent with themselves. You seem to say that it is possible. I'd like to know how.
DeleteThat's easy: "omnibenevolence" means "funny" and "evil" means "Steve Carrell."
DeleteLook, if you can't seriously answer my question, just say so.
DeleteI'm not interested in answering questions that are ambiguous. Your original question remains ambiguous. That's it, and that's all.
DeleteThere's nothing ambiguous about my original question nor my subsequent ones. You said omnibenevolence can be compatible with evil. I'm just asking you how you can achieve this without redefining the terms in an incoherent way. But this is apparently too complicated.
DeleteI say this cannot be done and have given you the opportunity to prove me wrong.
I already achieved this, and it was coherent. I still don't know what you mean by the terms, and it really doesn't bother me whether or not you think it can or cannot be done.
DeleteYou didn't actually make a coherent argument. And to demonstrate that, I've asked you to define "omnibenevolence" and "evil" in a way such where there wouldn't be any incoherence if a being had both of these properties.
DeleteI already have.
DeleteWhere? I've read and critiqued your response to me and I didn't see it anywhere. Could you reprint them here for clarity?
DeleteIt's only a few comments up.
DeleteThat wasn't an actual answer and you know it.
DeleteIt was an actual answer, and you just didn't like it.
DeleteOk then explain in detail, otherwise it's obvious you don't have an answer.
DeleteThat doesn't make any sense. You explain that in detail, otherwise it's obvious you don't have an answer.
DeleteExplain what?
DeleteAll of it.
DeleteDefine omnibenevolence first.
DeleteThat's easy: "omnibenevolence" means "funny" and "evil" means "Steve Carrell."
DeleteCite an online dictionary that uses that same definition.
DeleteThe Randy Online Dictionary, precisely two entries so far.
DeleteLOL. You don't have a coherent definition or argument and you know it. Just as I suspected.
DeleteNo, I don't know it. Next.
DeleteSee guys, The Thinker has a track record. As soon as I saw he wasn't going to disambiguate the question, it was all fun from there!
DeleteHow is this in any sense of the word ambiguous?
Delete"Define omnibenevolence."
You won't define it because you know you don't have a coherent argument. Otherwise you would have given it long ago.
I've given it multiple times. Ironically, it is you who have not offered any definition, and you asked the question (your second question, to be precise). You may avail yourself of a reading tutor, if necessary. :)
DeleteSecond post question, rather.
DeleteNo you haven't. And the more you avoid doing so the more you show everyone that you don't have a coherent argument. Give a definition from a linked online dictionary.
DeleteYes I have.
DeleteThis is hilarious lol
DeleteI was surprised to find the amount of comments left on this post had risen from 0 to 35 since my last view. I thought 'Wow, what the heck happened?'. Sadly (in a way) I didn't miss some great battle of intellects but just some troll getting outwitted. Pretty funny stuff though :)
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I'm sorry about all that James; it was great fun, but I didn't think I might be disappointing some others who may have been watching and hoping for something more interesting. :)
DeleteHi Randy,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that I may be late to the party, but I have a question that seems not to have been addressed. I understand the logic of the argument that you present and have no issue with that.
My question is this - how would you show that God's existence is possible?
rgds, Ian.
Good question! So here we'd want to distinguish between knowing and showing, in that both concepts differ from one another and you can know something without showing it (I could be said to know my own name, even if somehow all evidence external to me were erased, people silenced, etc.).
DeleteThat said, I will try to answer the question: first, I would appeal to people's sense that it really is possible that God exists. Many people have that intuition, after all.
But failing that, or if they think it's just as likely as not that God's existence is even possible, then you can just run through all sorts of various evidences (e.g., the kalam, teleological, other arguments). While none of these establish a full-blown picture of God on their own, collectively they give us something that seems both to pick out God and to be at least possible!