Comments on: A Triune Argument for God http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/ Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: phrontist http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-878 phrontist Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:09:18 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-878 > "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions. Are any of them *necessary* propositions? By conceiving of a godless possible world do I create square circles? I don't think so. > In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God. Absolutely wrong. It's the rejection of the idea of a non contingent being that rectifies the contradiction. > I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God. If the definition of some entity entails contradiction then that entity is impossible. > "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions.

Are any of them *necessary* propositions? By conceiving of a godless possible world do I create square circles? I don't think so.

> In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God.

Absolutely wrong. It's the rejection of the idea of a non contingent being that rectifies the contradiction.

> I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God.

If the definition of some entity entails contradiction then that entity is impossible.

]]> By: phrontist http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-10089 phrontist Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:09:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-10089 > "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions. Are any of them *necessary* propositions? By conceiving of a godless possible world do I create square circles? I don't think so. > In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God. Absolutely wrong. It's the rejection of the idea of a non contingent being that rectifies the contradiction. > I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God. If the definition of some entity entails contradiction then that entity is impossible. > "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions.

Are any of them *necessary* propositions? By conceiving of a godless possible world do I create square circles? I don't think so.

> In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God.

Absolutely wrong. It's the rejection of the idea of a non contingent being that rectifies the contradiction.

> I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God.

If the definition of some entity entails contradiction then that entity is impossible.

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-877 MitchLeBlanc Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:41:49 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-877 There is an extended argument given as a defense of (2), if it is sound, then the existence of God as defined for the argument is possible, it seems. There is an extended argument given as a defense of (2), if it is sound, then the existence of God as defined for the argument is possible, it seems.

]]> By: MitchLeBlanc http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-10088 MitchLeBlanc Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:41:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-10088 There is an extended argument given as a defense of (2), if it is sound, then the existence of God as defined for the argument is possible, it seems. There is an extended argument given as a defense of (2), if it is sound, then the existence of God as defined for the argument is possible, it seems.

]]> By: C.L. Bolt http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-875 C.L. Bolt Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:18:57 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-875 "Proposition G, 'God exists' cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true - and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world." What does this mean? "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions. "Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch - but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^" In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God. I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God. "Proposition G, 'God exists' cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true – and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world."

What does this mean? "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions.

"Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch – but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^"

In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God. I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God.

]]> By: C.L. Bolt http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-10087 C.L. Bolt Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:18:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-10087 "Proposition G, 'God exists' cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true - and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world." What does this mean? "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions. "Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch - but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^" In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God. I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God. "Proposition G, 'God exists' cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true – and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world."

What does this mean? "God does not exist" contradicts all kinds of propositions.

"Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch – but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^"

In the case you describe it would not be the definition of God that leads to contradiction, but the rejection of the definition of God. I do not know why anyone would think this means there would in such a case be something wrong with the definition of God.

]]> By: phrontist http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-871 phrontist Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:31:24 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-871 Proposition G, "God exists" cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true - and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world. Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch - but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^ Proposition G, "God exists" cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true – and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world.

Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch – but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^

]]> By: phrontist http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-cosmo-onto-teleo-logical-argument-for-god/comment-page-1/#comment-10086 phrontist Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:31:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=972#comment-10086 Proposition G, "God exists" cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true - and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world. Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch - but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^ Proposition G, "God exists" cannot be possibly necessary because I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world W in which it is not true – and W is accessible (can be "seen") from any possible world.

Now some would say that this leads to contradiction by violating the definition of God as non contingent or somesuch – but if the definition of God leads to contradiction, perhaps there's something, oh I don't know, wrong with it maybe? ^_^

]]>