What the modal argument proves

Image result for abstract idea of God

In comment section debate Pix writes:

"Or there might be one thing with the attributes of necessary, eternal and originator of the universe, but is not intelligent and does not have purpose. Thus, zero gods."

God arguments need not prove everything  I believe about God. I don't need to try and squeeze John 3:16 out of the ontological argument. We can stipulate the exact intent of an argument's goal. Moreover, arguments need not prove God's existence. We can argue that belief is warranted, That's the way I use God arguments. Not to prove God exists but that belief in God is warranted.

Now that means we can bring in more arguments to get to John 3:16 on. But let's see how far the one I made last time takes  us in that direction. the modal  argument:

1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.
7. Belief in God's existence is warranted

Line 6 says it all, if God is necessary than God exits,  Necessary means not contingent or impossible. That is to say God can't be a maybe. There is no  might be a God or there might not Be.That would only be the case if God could be contingent. Don't confuse that with saying that I can't be wrong. I could be wrong about the whole metaphysical shtick but as long as I can pull the deductive argument we have good reason to expect that there a basis for thinking there must be God.

Necessary being must exist and thus it means it would be eternal, thus would account for the existence of all temporal things. For if this aspect of being is not contingent and not impossible the only other choices are existing or fictional.The necessary existence of God is implied in the possibility of God's existence and the realization that the the only alternative is impossibility. God is possible and thus necessary. Some have tried to argue that they are breaking up the four categories with a 5th not seen, that of "fictional" but that applies to the category 4 that of non-existing contingency.

The argument turns on the distinction between necessity and contingency, and upon the distinction between mere possibility and the nature of necessary being as not mere possible. In other words, God is either necessary or impossible. If God exists than he is ontologically necessary, because he is logically necessary by definition. But if he does not exist than it is ontologically impossible that he exists, or could come to exist. This is because God cannot be contingent, by definition. A contingency is just not God. So if God is possible, he can't be "merely possible" and thus is not impossible, which means he must be necessary.

God is conceivable in analytic terms without contradiction:

The universe without God is not conceivable in analytical terms; it is dependent upon principles which are themselves contingent. Nothing can come from a possibility of total nothingness; the existence of singularities and density of matter depend upon empirical observations and extrapolation form it. By definition these things are not analytical and do depend upon causes higher up the chain than their being (note that the skeptic at this point probably denies the validity of analytic proofs but to reverse the argument must accept such proof).

Since the concept is coherent and not contradictory and is derived from analytic terms, to reverse the argument the atheist must show that God is impossible since the burden of proof is now on the one arguing that a contingent state of affairs could produce a universe in which being has to be.

The Argument proves that there is an aspect of being which is necessary and not continent, It's only logical to assume taught such an aspect of being is responsible for the creation all that is since it alone is eternal. We can further assume the consciousness of this aspect of being since creation of the universe is a fairly complex matter. The universe must be fine tuned to bear life the creator must know where to set the target levels for fine tunning.


The Pixie said…
this guy says that because Jesus' followers believed that he had risen then it is true.. they believed, therefore, it is true.. but that is like saying that because Muslims believe that angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad, then it is true, angel Gabriel did appear to Muhammad.. also, if Mormons believe that angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, then it must be true, because they believe it to be true.. Pauls evidence of seeing the risen Christ is no more valid that Muhammad and his claim of visions of angels, or of Joseph Smith and his claims...
Paul is not evidence of the existence of Jesus.. at the time that Paul wrote, the faith existed, but non of the people that Paul wrote to had ever met Jesus or even anyone else who had met him...
what guy? It's not true because they believed it, they believed it because they saw him alive again.
The Pixie said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
not cool Pix this is a christian sight and its not mine alone its a group.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

Jewish writings and a change in the Temple at the time of the Death of Jesus

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

The Folded Napkin Legend