Comments on: Bolt on “A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence”

By: A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence: Defeated | Urban Philosophy

A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence: Defeated | Urban Philosophy — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:38:14 +0000

[...] of God’s Existence.” There were then two more installments as replies to Ryft and Bolt. In this article I will attempt to show that the argument succeeds in showing the shortcomings of [...]

By: MitchLeBlanc

MitchLeBlanc — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:55:32 +0000

It may simply be that the argument is not applicable to your brand of theology. However, even if God brings about all the state of affairs which have been brought about. How does one move from this notion to (i), or do you think that (i) is false?

Aside from that, any other questions I might have would be more of curiosity than of relevance to the argument.

By: MitchLeBlanc

MitchLeBlanc — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:55:00 +0000

Aside from that, any other questions I might have would be more of curiosity than of relevance to the argument.

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:36:29 +0000

When I stated that God brings about all things, I really did mean it. You may want to take the verse I offered, Ephesians 1.11, and run it through your argument the way you did with the statement from the WCF. Even acts of murder are ultimately brought about by God. See for example Acts 4.27-28. I have no problem with accepting that sinful states of affairs are brought about by God. For more thought along these lines see – http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteA…

The apparent absurdity in – (i) If God exists, necessarily: no non-triune being can bring about a state of affairs – even given my theology is likely due to equivocation on "bring about" when the phrase is plugged into your argument.

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:36:22 +0000

It seems as though your argument here is essentially that I have been inconsistent with traditional Calvinist theology and that a Calvinist must reject that Triune God brings about all things. This is an incorrect conclusion. If I have misunderstood you in my hurry I am sure you will let me know. I do appreciate the time and work you have put into researching this subject and am afraid I am not able to match it right now because of my work load so I will mention a few things to consider.

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:36:00 +0000

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:36:00 +0000

By: Molzahn

Molzahn — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:24:39 +0000

" (1) If God exists, then God is necessarily omnipotent and necessarily triune [...] (2) If God is necessarily omnipotent, then God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs [...] (3) If God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs, then God necessarily can bring about a state of affairs that is brought about by a being that is not necessarily triune"

The problem is that you are establishing the non-triune being as contingent upon the existence of God. "God can bring about a state of affairs…"

Secondly, you propose that a non-triune god is logically possible. The concept may be logically consistent, but not necessarily logically possible.

By: Molzahn

Molzahn — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:24:00 +0000

The problem is that you are establishing the non-triune being as contingent upon the existence of God. "God can bring about a state of affairs…"

Secondly, you propose that a non-triune god is logically possible. The concept may be logically consistent, but not necessarily logically possible.