BQM

7.7K posts

BQM banner
BQM

BQM

@PrayPuffPlay

Chaplain/tobacconist/sports enthusiast; Doctor of Ministry candidate @seuniversity https://t.co/6lUEZgBhHH

Lakeland, FL 가입일 Ekim 2023
473 팔로잉471 팔로워
고정된 트윗
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
The Modal Trilemma Argument for the Necessary Existence of God ⸻ Definition By God I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect personal being. Necessary existence is not included in this definition. The argument does not begin by defining God as necessary. Instead, it begins with the familiar attributes traditionally associated with maximal greatness and examines what follows from them. The goal of the argument is to determine the modal status of such a being—whether such a being would be impossible, contingent, or necessary. ⸻ Clarifying A Priori Reasoning Before presenting the argument itself, it is important to clarify how a priori reasoning from properties works. Critics sometimes claim that statements such as “God is good” are trivial because goodness is supposedly built into the definition of God. But this confuses a tautology with a genuine a priori inference. Consider a simple geometric example. Geometric version 1.If a shape has eight equal sides and eight equal angles, then it is an octagon. 2.This shape has eight equal sides and eight equal angles. Therefore: This shape is an octagon. The conclusion follows necessarily, but it is not a meaningless restatement. Instead, we identified a set of properties that entail octagonhood. Now consider a parallel structure in the moral case. Moral version 1.A being with perfect knowledge of all value-relevant facts and perfect power to act on that knowledge cannot fail to do what is objectively best. 2.A maximally great being possesses perfect knowledge and perfect power. Therefore: The maximally great being is morally perfect. If a being is morally perfect in every possible situation, it is good. Thus the statement “God is good” is not definitional but the conclusion of a chain of reasoning. Just as eight equal sides + eight equal angles → octagon we get perfect knowledge + perfect power → moral perfection → goodness. Understanding this structure matters because the modal reasoning below proceeds in the same way: it does not define God into existence but explores what follows from the attributes of maximal greatness. ⸻ The Argument Premise 1 God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect personal being. These attributes describe a being that would possess maximal power, maximal knowledge, and perfect goodness. ⸻ Premise 2 Every candidate being must fall into one of three modal categories: impossible, contingent, or necessary. A being is impossible if it cannot exist in any possible reality. A being is contingent if it exists in some possible realities but not others. A being is necessary if it exists in every possible reality. These three possibilities exhaust the modal options. ⸻ Premise 3 If God exists, God would be the ultimate foundation of reality. A being with unlimited knowledge, power, and moral perfection would not merely be another object within reality but the deepest explanatory ground of it. ⸻ Premise 4 The ultimate foundation of reality cannot be contingent. If the ultimate ground of reality existed in some possible realities but not others, we would need an explanation for why it exists here but not there. Either something external explains the difference, the being’s own nature explains it, or the distribution is brute. External explanation undermines ultimacy. Internal explanation yields necessity. Brute distribution would make the ultimate foundation of reality arbitrary. ⸻ Premise 5 Therefore a maximally great being must be metaphysically independent. A maximally great being cannot depend on external causes or unexplained modal distribution. Its existence cannot flicker on and off across possible realities. ⸻ Premise 6 If God exists at all, God must exist necessarily rather than contingently. Once contingency is ruled out for a maximally great being, the remaining modal options are necessity or impossibility. ⸻ … continued in comment below
English
4
2
6
1.7K
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@PhilosopherJoeC @AleMartnezR1 I wouldn’t quite say that. There are a priori demonstrations of God’s existence. I’m okay with saying there are only limited a posteriori demonstrations of God’s existence and they mostly came in short bursts thousands of years ago and in a very specific geographic area.
English
0
0
1
8
Joe Campbell
Joe Campbell@PhilosopherJoeC·
@PrayPuffPlay @AleMartnezR1 I'm just saying there is no demonstrations for God's existence. You seem to be admitting the same, since demonstrations do not defy logic. If they do, we all have them, and they are no good other than for personal use.
English
1
0
0
15
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@GuyReadingBooks It’s really both internal and external to God if it’s not equivalent to God and yet the only sort of actions God can take. The comparison to the octagon analogy does serious work here. Is a line internal or external to the shape of an octagon? The answer is both:
BQM@PrayPuffPlay

The Modal Trilemma Argument for the Necessary Existence of God ⸻ Definition By God I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect personal being. Necessary existence is not included in this definition. The argument does not begin by defining God as necessary. Instead, it begins with the familiar attributes traditionally associated with maximal greatness and examines what follows from them. The goal of the argument is to determine the modal status of such a being—whether such a being would be impossible, contingent, or necessary. ⸻ Clarifying A Priori Reasoning Before presenting the argument itself, it is important to clarify how a priori reasoning from properties works. Critics sometimes claim that statements such as “God is good” are trivial because goodness is supposedly built into the definition of God. But this confuses a tautology with a genuine a priori inference. Consider a simple geometric example. Geometric version 1.If a shape has eight equal sides and eight equal angles, then it is an octagon. 2.This shape has eight equal sides and eight equal angles. Therefore: This shape is an octagon. The conclusion follows necessarily, but it is not a meaningless restatement. Instead, we identified a set of properties that entail octagonhood. Now consider a parallel structure in the moral case. Moral version 1.A being with perfect knowledge of all value-relevant facts and perfect power to act on that knowledge cannot fail to do what is objectively best. 2.A maximally great being possesses perfect knowledge and perfect power. Therefore: The maximally great being is morally perfect. If a being is morally perfect in every possible situation, it is good. Thus the statement “God is good” is not definitional but the conclusion of a chain of reasoning. Just as eight equal sides + eight equal angles → octagon we get perfect knowledge + perfect power → moral perfection → goodness. Understanding this structure matters because the modal reasoning below proceeds in the same way: it does not define God into existence but explores what follows from the attributes of maximal greatness. ⸻ The Argument Premise 1 God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect personal being. These attributes describe a being that would possess maximal power, maximal knowledge, and perfect goodness. ⸻ Premise 2 Every candidate being must fall into one of three modal categories: impossible, contingent, or necessary. A being is impossible if it cannot exist in any possible reality. A being is contingent if it exists in some possible realities but not others. A being is necessary if it exists in every possible reality. These three possibilities exhaust the modal options. ⸻ Premise 3 If God exists, God would be the ultimate foundation of reality. A being with unlimited knowledge, power, and moral perfection would not merely be another object within reality but the deepest explanatory ground of it. ⸻ Premise 4 The ultimate foundation of reality cannot be contingent. If the ultimate ground of reality existed in some possible realities but not others, we would need an explanation for why it exists here but not there. Either something external explains the difference, the being’s own nature explains it, or the distribution is brute. External explanation undermines ultimacy. Internal explanation yields necessity. Brute distribution would make the ultimate foundation of reality arbitrary. ⸻ Premise 5 Therefore a maximally great being must be metaphysically independent. A maximally great being cannot depend on external causes or unexplained modal distribution. Its existence cannot flicker on and off across possible realities. ⸻ Premise 6 If God exists at all, God must exist necessarily rather than contingently. Once contingency is ruled out for a maximally great being, the remaining modal options are necessity or impossibility. ⸻ … continued in comment below

English
1
0
1
40
Guy Reading 📚
Guy Reading 📚@GuyReadingBooks·
@PrayPuffPlay I think a more conceptual way to think about this could be that euthyphros dilemma assumes that moral standard either exists external to God or does not exist in any robust sense at all. Thereby not mentioning the third possibility of it being internal to God.
English
1
0
0
22
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
P1. A dilemma is false if it excludes a genuine third possibility. P2. The Euthyphro Dilemma excludes the possibility that moral truths are necessary and independent of divine will, while God necessarily aligns with them by virtue of perfect knowledge, power, and rationality. P3. That excluded possibility is genuine. C. Therefore, the Euthyphro Dilemma is false.
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins 🇺🇸🇺🇦🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️@SpeedWatkins

@PrayPuffPlay But on your view, is morality depend on God or independent of God?

English
7
1
3
455
Joe Campbell
Joe Campbell@PhilosopherJoeC·
@PrayPuffPlay @AleMartnezR1 The view has difficulties. If God's existence is necessary, his properties are necessary, and so are his decrees (Leibniz, Theodicy). If God's existence is necessary, it cannot be denied. But it can be denied; in fact, a lot of folks deny it (Hume, Dialogues).
English
1
0
0
10
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@PhilosopherJoeC @AleMartnezR1 1) something is either possible or impossible 2) it’s possible only under certain circumstances: it’s contingent 3) it’s possible under any circumstances: it’s necessary This isn’t an assumption. That’s a very plain logical entailment/inference.
English
1
0
1
14
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@PhilosopherJoeC @AleMartnezR1 You and I have lots of characteristics that make us impossible in some worlds. (Like worlds without oxygen, or worlds without anything physical whatsoever)
English
0
0
1
4
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
Because I’m staunchly an essentialist and haecceitist. I can’t even fathom believing differently and that there genuinely is no distinction between different things. Certain possible things definitely have characteristics that make them impossible in some worlds and those things are contingent. Any other possible thing is necessary. God has none that make him impossible in some worlds.
English
1
0
1
3
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@PhilosopherJoeC @AleMartnezR1 Well they’re both modal categories of existence, like red and blue are both colors. But they are definitely two different categories of existence (all possible worlds vs some possible worlds) just like red and blue are two different colors.
English
1
0
1
11
Joe Campbell
Joe Campbell@PhilosopherJoeC·
@PrayPuffPlay @AleMartnezR1 OK, I'm happy to change topics. I'm just point it out. 2 sets of questions: 1/ Why think there is a distinction between necessity and contingency? That seems both the conclusion and a premise of your argument. Why believe it?
English
2
0
1
14
Joe Campbell
Joe Campbell@PhilosopherJoeC·
@PrayPuffPlay @AleMartnezR1 You are demonstrating the moving target nature of this discussion. We started out with the ontological argument and have moved on to one of Aquinas's five ways!
English
1
0
0
16
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@PhilosopherJoeC @AleMartnezR1 Yes, it is, because you’re contingent. What depends on something else can’t be the source of everything.
English
1
0
1
17
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@PhilosopherJoeC @AleMartnezR1 Here’s how you demonstrate it: it’s not logically impossible for an omnipotent being to create physical things without a physical body.
English
1
0
2
26
Joe Campbell
Joe Campbell@PhilosopherJoeC·
@AleMartnezR1 Why must God be lacking a body? What is a body? How can God create without a body? If you can't explain how a being without a body could create a world, then appeal to God is not an explanation of the world's existence. Science attempts to provide details, why not theology?
English
2
0
0
62
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@Harri18971 “True nothing” is impossible.
English
0
0
0
17
Harald Erler
Harald Erler@Harri18971·
@PrayPuffPlay So there was a floating Numbers 3 in nothing, making it not nothing? Yeah sure.
English
1
0
0
17
س
س@T00_0pinionated·
@PrayPuffPlay The dilemma includes this option
English
1
0
2
49
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@AleMartnezR1 I don’t deny divine simplicity. Just not an extremely strong form of it. I’m big on essentialism and haecceity. It adds a lot of nuance. 😅
English
1
0
1
9
Natural Theist
Natural Theist@AleMartnezR1·
@PrayPuffPlay Oh, I understand now. It is true. The divine ideas are not God himself. They are different from him, formed by him by conceiving them. Why did I think you held divine simplicity?
English
1
0
0
24
Dr. Scott M. Sullivan
Dr. Scott M. Sullivan@DrScotMSullivan·
"It [the modern modal ontological argument] is a much less serious challenge to the theological sceptic than Anselm's version. The view which is now popularly disseminated, that recent advances in modal logic permit the construction of arguments which should disturb atheistic or agnostic philosophers, and give some long awaited comfort to theistic ones, is simply false and quite without foundation." - J.L. Mackie
English
1
0
3
307
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
The octagon analogy doesn't say the maximally great being is goodness itself or that it merely knows the good. It shows that omniscience + omnipotence + perfect rationality + maximal greatness necessarily entails that its will tracks independent value facts in every possible world, with zero gap or defect possible. That's what dissolves Euthyphro: moral truths stay fully independent (not created by any will), yet the being isn't subordinated to them because alignment is baked into its perfections like eight equal sides force octagonhood. No arbitrary commands, no external standard it has to obey. It's just the only coherent way a perfect being can exist.
English
0
0
1
7
Shaamba Ⓥ
Shaamba Ⓥ@ShaambaBaashdi·
@PrayPuffPlay @SpeedWatkins It sounds like that only argues for the claim that an omniscient and omnipotent would know what is good, not that said being is goodness itself. Goodness itself has not been established as being identical with said being. IOW, it falls into the Euthyphro dilemma again. I think.
English
1
0
0
7
BQM
BQM@PrayPuffPlay·
@AleMartnezR1 They still are. You’ve made a lot of good arguments for numbers and other abstract necessary things being eternal necessary concepts of divine intellect, but they still aren’t the exact same thing as God just like lines aren’t the same thing as an octagon.
English
1
0
1
37
Natural Theist
Natural Theist@AleMartnezR1·
@PrayPuffPlay Why not put moral truths in the divine intellect, as his necessary and eternal ideas of goodness?
English
2
0
6
119