Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

It is possible for God to not exist ...

PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 10:46:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do we say this? Why do we say "It's possible for God to exist," or "It's possible for God to not exist"?

To me, this makes no sense. When we say something is possibly existent, we are typically referring to this reality that we live in; however, it doesn't make sense to say "it's possible for 'X' to exist," as X either exists in reality or it doesn't.

Suppose there's unchartered land and humans want to explore it. Someone points toward the area of unchartered land, and says, "Is it possible that there's a mountain there?" to which the person's companion replies, "Yes, it is possible" without even thinking about it, as it's a common response to a person's question. As the saying goes, "Anything is possible."

But is it really possible for there to be a mountain there? In reality, a mountain either exists there or it doesn't, right?. There is no probability assigned to this value. There isn't, say, a 60% chance that there's a mountain there, or a 40% chance, or a 20% chance. The mountain is either there or it isn't. Once the entire area of land is explored, this "possibility" vanishes and we know for certain if a mountain is there or not, so it becomes ridiculous to say that there is a probability that a mountain exists in that area, because we know for certain if it does or it doesn't.

So, in cases when it comes to existence, is this probability actually just subjective to human perception? Is it just meaningless to say it's possible for this to be or this to not be? That's not to say probability in general is meaningless. For example, if I have a bag of different colored balls, there is a certain probability of me picking a certain ball, because it hasn't happened yet. I could pick any ball, and it depends on my own actions. There is no set fact that I will pick the red ball or the blue ball or the green ball (well ... unless you believe everything has already been planned out and there's nothing we can do to change it). So probability is not meaningless in this situation and it is thus possible for me to pick a certain colored ball.

But the mountain is either there or it isn't. 1 or 0. Not 0.5 or 0.7. It's either 1 or 0 at that moment of time. It will not change - it will stay as it is no matter how we charter the area. Picking the ball is dependent on my own actions. The existence of the mountain is not dependent on these things, and simply is.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 10:55:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:46:54 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Why do we say this? Why do we say "It's possible for God to exist," or "It's possible for God to not exist"?

Well there is reality, then there is a possible world. In reality, my username is xXCryptoXx, but in a possible world my username could be CryptonZ. It is irreverent whether my username actually is CryptonZ, because in a possible world that is what i could have made my username.

God though, is either completely necessary, or completely unnecessary. He either exists in all possible worlds or does not exist in all possible worlds. That is because due to God's omnipotence, he must be necessary in all possible worlds lest he not be omnipotent(or maybe omnipresent?)

To me, this makes no sense. When we say something is possibly existent, we are typically referring to this reality that we live in

This is your mistake, because this is untrue. When discussing whether something could possibly exist, we are usually not talking about reality, rather a possible reality.
Nolite Timere
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:12:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:55:22 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

This is your mistake, because this is untrue. When discussing whether something could possibly exist, we are usually not talking about reality, rather a possible reality.

A possible reality is an abstract one ... it's practically useless to discuss them, as they have no true existence (actually, this depends on what you mean by possible reality ... I was going to say a lot more, but it really does depend on what you mean by possible reality). No one wants to know if God exists in some non-existent abstract world. We want to know if God exists in this reality.

I'm operating under the assumption that this reality is the "true" one.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:12:06 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/16/2014 10:55:22 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

This is your mistake, because this is untrue. When discussing whether something could possibly exist, we are usually not talking about reality, rather a possible reality.

A possible reality is an abstract one ... it's practically useless to discuss them, as they have no true existence (actually, this depends on what you mean by possible reality ... I was going to say a lot more, but it really does depend on what you mean by possible reality). No one wants to know if God exists in some non-existent abstract world. We want to know if God exists in this reality.

Well if God exists in a possible world then he exists in every possible world due to his traits.

Possible worlds are very important when discussing philosophy. In a possible world a pink talking Pegasus could exist, but one does not in this world.

I'm operating under the assumption that this reality is the "true" one.

Of course.
Nolite Timere
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:34:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:17:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Well if God exists in a possible world then he exists in every possible world due to his traits.

Yes, and this is why it seems meaningless to say he exists in some possible world, because if he exists in a possible world, he exists in every possible world. If he doesn't, then he doesn't exist at all. It's the same situation as the analogy with the mountain I provided in the very first post. It's either 1 or 0. God is either there or he isn't. We might as well discuss if he exists in this reality or not, because there is not 50% or 30% chance he exists. We have to look at it as a whole.


Possible worlds are very important when discussing philosophy. In a possible world a pink talking Pegasus could exist, but one does not in this world.

As we already said, if God exists in one world, he exists in all worlds. The same cannot apply for the Pegasus, though.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 11:59:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:34:03 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/16/2014 11:17:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Well if God exists in a possible world then he exists in every possible world due to his traits.

Yes, and this is why it seems meaningless to say he exists in some possible world, because if he exists in a possible world, he exists in every possible world. If he doesn't, then he doesn't exist at all. It's the same situation as the analogy with the mountain I provided in the very first post. It's either 1 or 0. God is either there or he isn't. We might as well discuss if he exists in this reality or not, because there is not 50% or 30% chance he exists. We have to look at it as a whole.


Possible worlds are very important when discussing philosophy. In a possible world a pink talking Pegasus could exist, but one does not in this world.

As we already said, if God exists in one world, he exists in all worlds. The same cannot apply for the Pegasus, though.

Probability comes into play, using your island/mountain analogy, based on the number of islands with/without mountains.

God being defined as a singular omnipotent being, I assume this is your definition or at least the one you are using, would require finding only one island and on that island there is either a mountain or there isn't.

However, further defining God may be required. We run into the omnipotence paradox. The island could potentially have a mountain while not having a mountain. The island may not even exist while existing etc.

In my reality to my knowledge god does not exist, though he may and I just don't know it.
In other people's reality he most definitely exists, though he may not and they could just be delusional.

It's funny, because we run into each other all the time.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 12:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:34:03 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/16/2014 11:17:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Well if God exists in a possible world then he exists in every possible world due to his traits.

Yes, and this is why it seems meaningless to say he exists in some possible world, because if he exists in a possible world, he exists in every possible world. If he doesn't, then he doesn't exist at all. It's the same situation as the analogy with the mountain I provided in the very first post. It's either 1 or 0. God is either there or he isn't. We might as well discuss if he exists in this reality or not, because there is not 50% or 30% chance he exists. We have to look at it as a whole.

Right. The reason this is relevant is because it follows the Modal Ontological Argument, which could go as so:

P1. If God exists then God is necessary.
P2. If God is necessary then God exists in all possible worlds.
P3. We can imagine a possible world where God exists.
C1. Therefore God exists in this world.

It uses possible worlds in order to prove God's existence, instead of just focusing on this world.

Possible worlds are very important when discussing philosophy. In a possible world a pink talking Pegasus could exist, but one does not in this world.

As we already said, if God exists in one world, he exists in all worlds. The same cannot apply for the Pegasus, though.

I'm not saying that a Pegasus exists in all worlds, because the Pegasus does not posses the traits of God. I'm just saying that in a possible world a Pegasus could exist, not that it exists in this world.

So back to your mountain on an island question, if someone asks whether it is possible that a mountain could be on that island the question does not refer to this world (because obviously a mountain does not exist on the island), but rather a possible world where a mountain could exist on that island.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 2:05:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not sure how this uniquely applies to God. In any case, claiming that it is possible for something to not exist means that we don't know either way.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 3:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:34:03 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/16/2014 11:17:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Well if God exists in a possible world then he exists in every possible world due to his traits.

Yes, and this is why it seems meaningless to say he exists in some possible world, because if he exists in a possible world, he exists in every possible world. If he doesn't, then he doesn't exist at all. It's the same situation as the analogy with the mountain I provided in the very first post. It's either 1 or 0. God is either there or he isn't. We might as well discuss if he exists in this reality or not, because there is not 50% or 30% chance he exists. We have to look at it as a whole.


Possible worlds are very important when discussing philosophy. In a possible world a pink talking Pegasus could exist, but one does not in this world.

As we already said, if God exists in one world, he exists in all worlds. The same cannot apply for the Pegasus, though.

When you say "or" in the sentence, Q does exist OR Q does not exist, you just turned it into a possibility. If all variables are equal then the probability is 50% exist vs. 50% not exist.

Something is possible when a mutually exhaustive or exclusive condition is not required or necessary to be present.

Why is a square circle impossible? Because the defining conditions to make it a square are mutually incompatible with the defining conditions to make it a circle.

Probability (%, odds, chance to occur) is something other than possibility (able to occur).

For God to be possible in this world, there must be no exclusive condition to God. (I.E. god is not impossible)

After the possibility is established, then you calculate the odds (probability) based on traits of God occurring at the same time.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 11:59:33 AM, Heterodox wrote:

Probability comes into play, using your island/mountain analogy, based on the number of islands with/without mountains.

God being defined as a singular omnipotent being, I assume this is your definition or at least the one you are using, would require finding only one island and on that island there is either a mountain or there isn't.

However, further defining God may be required. We run into the omnipotence paradox. The island could potentially have a mountain while not having a mountain. The island may not even exist while existing etc.

By the omnipotence paradox, are you referring to paradoxes such as the stone paradox?


In my reality to my knowledge god does not exist, though he may and I just don't know it.
In other people's reality he most definitely exists, though he may not and they could just be delusional.

It's funny, because we run into each other all the time.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 4:12:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 12:59:49 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Right. The reason this is relevant is because it follows the Modal Ontological Argument, which could go as so:

P1. If God exists then God is necessary.
P2. If God is necessary then God exists in all possible worlds.
P3. We can imagine a possible world where God exists.
C1. Therefore God exists in this world.

That is actually the reason I created this thread, because then the reverse modal ontological argument can easily be applied. So it comes down to knowing if God can either exist in a possible world or not, and we already said that we should treat it all as "one," since if God exists/doesn't exist in one world, then he exists/doesn't exist in all worlds.

So you basically need to know if God exists or not to say it's possible for him to exist or possible for him to not exist.


So back to your mountain on an island question, if someone asks whether it is possible that a mountain could be on that island the question does not refer to this world (because obviously a mountain does not exist on the island), but rather a possible world where a mountain could exist on that island.

That question most definitely refers to this world. We don't know if the mountain does or doesn't exist on the unchartered land. It either does or it doesn't, but we don't know, and the questioner wants to know if it's possible that the mountain exists on that very island, not on an island in another possible world.

That information (the knowledge of it existing in possible worlds that are not this one) would be completely useless and irrelevant to what the questioner really wants to know. We can all conceive a possible world where there is a mountain and where there is not a mountain, but what we can conceive doesn't change whether the mountain is there or not.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 4:22:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 3:20:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

When you say "or" in the sentence, Q does exist OR Q does not exist, you just turned it into a possibility. If all variables are equal then the probability is 50% exist vs. 50% not exist.

No, because it's either 1 or 0. There is no in-between. It's just like with the mountain.

Suppose there is a small group of people living on that island who have already examined every part of it. Such a question as, "Is it possible that a mountain exists on that island," would be silly, as there is no "probability." They already know if there is a mountain or not a mountain. There isn't a 50% chance of there being a mountain, as it's either there or not.

Imagine, a scientist tells the native people living there that there is a 60% chance of a mountain being on some spot. The native people would tell the scientist that there isn't a 50% chance of there being a mountain, as they already know that a mountain is or isn't there.

Now, there might be a 50% chance of a mountain being able to form under the right conditions on some spot, but that's not necessarily the same as a 50% chance of there being a mountain in existence.


Something is possible when a mutually exhaustive or exclusive condition is not required or necessary to be present.

Why is a square circle impossible? Because the defining conditions to make it a square are mutually incompatible with the defining conditions to make it a circle.

Probability (%, odds, chance to occur) is something other than possibility (able to occur).

For God to be possible in this world, there must be no exclusive condition to God. (I.E. god is not impossible)

I believe that this is worded wrong. We want to know if it's possible that God exists, not if it's possible that God could exist. It's the same with the mountain analogy I mentioned above.


After the possibility is established, then you calculate the odds (probability) based on traits of God occurring at the same time.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 4:42:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 4:22:52 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/17/2014 3:20:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

When you say "or" in the sentence, Q does exist OR Q does not exist, you just turned it into a possibility. If all variables are equal then the probability is 50% exist vs. 50% not exist.

No, because it's either 1 or 0. There is no in-between. It's just like with the mountain.

Suppose there is a small group of people living on that island who have already examined every part of it. Such a question as, "Is it possible that a mountain exists on that island," would be silly, as there is no "probability." They already know if there is a mountain or not a mountain. There isn't a 50% chance of there being a mountain, as it's either there or not.

Imagine, a scientist tells the native people living there that there is a 60% chance of a mountain being on some spot. The native people would tell the scientist that there isn't a 50% chance of there being a mountain, as they already know that a mountain is or isn't there.

Now, there might be a 50% chance of a mountain being able to form under the right conditions on some spot, but that's not necessarily the same as a 50% chance of there being a mountain in existence.


When you say anything using a %, you are talking about a probability

Read that word again. Probability is the odds, the chance of something happening, the likely hood.

...pause...

Possible is able to happen although not certain to; denoting a fact, event, or situation that may or may not occur or be so.

If there is nothing required in reality to make something NOT happen.. then it is possible.

If the natives of the Island have searched every part of the island then they have a knowledge of the island that would be exclusive to a mountain being present. The possibility of the mountain is removed by the knowledge of the natives.


Something is possible when a mutually exhaustive or exclusive condition is not required or necessary to be present.

Why is a square circle impossible? Because the defining conditions to make it a square are mutually incompatible with the defining conditions to make it a circle.

Probability (%, odds, chance to occur) is something other than possibility (able to occur).

For God to be possible in this world, there must be no exclusive condition to God. (I.E. god is not impossible)

I believe that this is worded wrong. We want to know if it's possible that God exists, not if it's possible that God could exist. It's the same with the mountain analogy I mentioned above.


After the possibility is established, then you calculate the odds (probability) based on traits of God occurring at the same time.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 5:41:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:46:54 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Why do we say this? Why do we say "It's possible for God to exist," or "It's possible for God to not exist"?

To me, this makes no sense. When we say something is possibly existent, we are typically referring to this reality that we live in; however, it doesn't make sense to say "it's possible for 'X' to exist," as X either exists in reality or it doesn't.

It all depends on whether you define the word God as an invisible supernatural character in space or as a metaphorical character which personifies something we consider to be real like love.
Those who define it as an invisible supernatural beings do not perceive it to be any more real than Santa Claus. However, obviously those who are immature will always believe in the invisible character the same as a child believes in Santa.
Those who define it as a personification of a spirit or attitude like Love, Joy, Peace, etc perceive it as being as real as those attitudes.
Do attitudes exist in reality or not? Are they not personified and manifested through humans?

Suppose there's unchartered land and humans want to explore it. Someone points toward the area of unchartered land, and says, "Is it possible that there's a mountain there?" to which the person's companion replies, "Yes, it is possible" without even thinking about it, as it's a common response to a person's question. As the saying goes, "Anything is possible."

Is it possible that there could be a mountain of unbelief which causes some people to be blind to the mountain itself?
Can that mountain of unbelief be removed by just talking to an unbeliever?

But is it really possible for there to be a mountain there? In reality, a mountain either exists there or it doesn't, right?. There is no probability assigned to this value. There isn't, say, a 60% chance that there's a mountain there, or a 40% chance, or a 20% chance. The mountain is either there or it isn't. Once the entire area of land is explored, this "possibility" vanishes and we know for certain if a mountain is there or not, so it becomes ridiculous to say that there is a probability that a mountain exists in that area, because we know for certain if it does or it doesn't.

Literal mountains exist in reality. Metaphorical mountains also exist in reality. Some people overcome those kind of obstacles, hurdles or mountains in their lives and others can't seem to get past them, through them or around them. Have you explored the land of your own heart? How many mountains exist in that land? How many obstacles are in there for you to climb over or find a way around? Do those obstacles exist in you or not? Can you prove to others that they exist or not? Does Love exist in you? Does understanding exist in you? Does doubt exist in you?

So, in cases when it comes to existence, is this probability actually just subjective to human perception? Is it just meaningless to say it's possible for this to be or this to not be? That's not to say probability in general is meaningless. For example, if I have a bag of different colored balls, there is a certain probability of me picking a certain ball, because it hasn't happened yet. I could pick any ball, and it depends on my own actions. There is no set fact that I will pick the red ball or the blue ball or the green ball (well ... unless you believe everything has already been planned out and there's nothing we can do to change it). So probability is not meaningless in this situation and it is thus possible for me to pick a certain colored ball.

The problem with existence is that many people will not believe something exists unless they can actually see it and consider it to be something tangible.
Can you make a list of invisible intangible things which exist or do you think nothing intangible exists in reality?
Does Love exist in reality?
Do fantasies exist in reality?
Do myths exist in reality?
If I ask you to pick a red ball. I would say the chances of you picking a red ball are 100% unless you deliberately close your eyes and pick at random but if you are looking for a red ball you will find one as long as one exists amongst your collection of balls. If you do not have a red ball in your collection, does it mean red balls do not exist at all?

But the mountain is either there or it isn't. 1 or 0. Not 0.5 or 0.7. It's either 1 or 0 at that moment of time. It will not change - it will stay as it is no matter how we charter the area. Picking the ball is dependent on my own actions. The existence of the mountain is not dependent on these things, and simply is.

Understanding is also "there" or it isn't. If it isn't and you want it to be "there", how do you get it?
Can you remove a mountain? Just because a mountain is there, does not mean it will not change. There are plenty of ways mountains can be removed including the natural cause of an earthquake. If nature does not remove the mountain and you can't remove the mountain you can always go under it, through it or around it.
Ignorance can be removed unless you want it to remain as it is?
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 5:54:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:46:54 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Why do we say this? Why do we say "It's possible for God to exist," or "It's possible for God to not exist"?

To me, this makes no sense. When we say something is possibly existent, we are typically referring to this reality that we live in; however, it doesn't make sense to say "it's possible for 'X' to exist," as X either exists in reality or it doesn't.

Suppose there's unchartered land and humans want to explore it. Someone points toward the area of unchartered land, and says, "Is it possible that there's a mountain there?" to which the person's companion replies, "Yes, it is possible" without even thinking about it, as it's a common response to a person's question. As the saying goes, "Anything is possible."

But is it really possible for there to be a mountain there? In reality, a mountain either exists there or it doesn't, right?. There is no probability assigned to this value. There isn't, say, a 60% chance that there's a mountain there, or a 40% chance, or a 20% chance. The mountain is either there or it isn't. Once the entire area of land is explored, this "possibility" vanishes and we know for certain if a mountain is there or not, so it becomes ridiculous to say that there is a probability that a mountain exists in that area, because we know for certain if it does or it doesn't.

So, in cases when it comes to existence, is this probability actually just subjective to human perception? Is it just meaningless to say it's possible for this to be or this to not be? That's not to say probability in general is meaningless. For example, if I have a bag of different colored balls, there is a certain probability of me picking a certain ball, because it hasn't happened yet. I could pick any ball, and it depends on my own actions. There is no set fact that I will pick the red ball or the blue ball or the green ball (well ... unless you believe everything has already been planned out and there's nothing we can do to change it). So probability is not meaningless in this situation and it is thus possible for me to pick a certain colored ball.

But the mountain is either there or it isn't. 1 or 0. Not 0.5 or 0.7. It's either 1 or 0 at that moment of time. It will not change - it will stay as it is no matter how we charter the area. Picking the ball is dependent on my own actions. The existence of the mountain is not dependent on these things, and simply is.

No. And the answer is just as simple as that.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:04:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 4:42:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

When you say anything using a %, you are talking about a probability

Yes, and there is no probability value associated with God.


Read that word again. Probability is the odds, the chance of something happening, the likely hood.

...pause...

Possible is able to happen although not certain to; denoting a fact, event, or situation that may or may not occur or be so.

And anything that is possible necessarily has a probability associated with it.


If there is nothing required in reality to make something NOT happen.. then it is possible.

If the natives of the Island have searched every part of the island then they have a knowledge of the island that would be exclusive to a mountain being present. The possibility of the mountain is removed by the knowledge of the natives.

So possibility is dependent on our perception or knowledge?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:07:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 5:54:59 PM, inferno wrote:

So my question was, "Why do we say that it's possible for God to not exist?" and you reply ...


No.

Classic.

Oh, why do we exist?


Yes

Excellent!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:16:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 6:04:18 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/17/2014 4:42:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

When you say anything using a %, you are talking about a probability

Yes, and there is no probability value associated with God.


Read that word again. Probability is the odds, the chance of something happening, the likely hood.

...pause...

Possible is able to happen although not certain to; denoting a fact, event, or situation that may or may not occur or be so.

And anything that is possible necessarily has a probability associated with it.


If there is nothing required in reality to make something NOT happen.. then it is possible.

If the natives of the Island have searched every part of the island then they have a knowledge of the island that would be exclusive to a mountain being present. The possibility of the mountain is removed by the knowledge of the natives.

So possibility is dependent on our perception or knowledge?

Of course it is. Take Schrodinger's cat. Is it possible the cat is alive in the box with a radioactive element? Yes. Because we do not know if the element has decayed yet. Even if we know it's half life of 30 minutes, does not mean half the element decays in 30 minutes. I know it sounds strange but the half life is an average. it could decay half in 5 minutes then nothing for 25 minutes
Now is it possible the cat is alive in a sealed box with no air inside. Then we say it is not possible. Because we know the cat NEEDS air to be alive.

The reason why you can not prove a universal negative like, "God does not exist" or "purple aliens do not exist" is because we do not have universal knowledge of everything that exists in this universe.

If the island were the universe and we as natives searched every square inch of it. We could say the mountain or "purple aliens do not exist" , well that implies that our search techniques were able to perceive purple aliens.

So possibility of something existing certainly rests on our knowledge. The thing is the possibility to exists continues to be a possibility until we find just 1 universally required condition that is exclusive to God.

Most Atheist already do this by claiming the universe is material. That there is no supernatural, no spiritual, and no god to begin with. That state there is a universal condition that everything in the universe is composed of material. This is exclusive to God.

This materialism however is an assumption about the universe. It is not proven to be the reality of this universe. In fact I would argue that the fundamental nature of this universe and reality show that materialism is incoherent with the facts and experiments discerning the fabric of this reality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 6:07:36 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/17/2014 5:54:59 PM, inferno wrote:

So my question was, "Why do we say that it's possible for God to not exist?" and you reply ...


No.

Classic.

Oh, why do we exist?


Yes

Excellent!

If you are referring to a Modal Logic argument than the reason people say, "possible God does not exist" is because to say "it is impossible for God to exist" Are 2 different meanings.

To say something is impossible is in the world there is a NEEDED condition that Excludes the object in question from existing. Or it is illogical.

Square circles, married bachelors, etc...

But to say it is possible something, means it is not required to have an exclusive condition, but possible the condition is not present.

So "It is possible God does not exist" Is a way of saying that there are no required conditions that make God impossible or illogical, but that there is also no requirement for God to exist in a world.

But saying the second, an easier argument is attained.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:52:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 6:07:36 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/17/2014 5:54:59 PM, inferno wrote:

So my question was, "Why do we say that it's possible for God to not exist?" and you reply ...


No.

Classic.

Oh, why do we exist?


Yes

Excellent!

Say what you must. But there is much underneath the sun that a minute minded mortal like yourself will never understand.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 11:35:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 4:12:06 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/17/2014 12:59:49 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Right. The reason this is relevant is because it follows the Modal Ontological Argument, which could go as so:

P1. If God exists then God is necessary.
P2. If God is necessary then God exists in all possible worlds.
P3. We can imagine a possible world where God exists.
C1. Therefore God exists in this world.

That is actually the reason I created this thread, because then the reverse modal ontological argument can easily be applied. So it comes down to knowing if God can either exist in a possible world or not, and we already said that we should treat it all as "one," since if God exists/doesn't exist in one world, then he exists/doesn't exist in all worlds.

So you basically need to know if God exists or not to say it's possible for him to exist or possible for him to not exist.

The reason people use the modal ontoligical argument is because if there was no question that God existed in this world, then the debate wouldn't exist at all. It is easier to argue for the existence of God from the perspective of a possible world because one may be able to imagine a world where God exists, even if the atheist/whatever didn't accept that God existed in this world.

So back to your mountain on an island question, if someone asks whether it is possible that a mountain could be on that island the question does not refer to this world (because obviously a mountain does not exist on the island), but rather a possible world where a mountain could exist on that island.

That question most definitely refers to this world. We don't know if the mountain does or doesn't exist on the unchartered land. It either does or it doesn't, but we don't know, and the questioner wants to know if it's possible that the mountain exists on that very island, not on an island in another possible world.

It depends on the phrasing of the question. If one asks, "is there a mountain on the island?" then the answer is objectively yes or no, there is no possibility. However, if one asks, "is it possible that a mountain could be on that island?" then the answer is yes because in some possible world a mountain could exist on that island.

That information (the knowledge of it existing in possible worlds that are not this one) would be completely useless and irrelevant to what the questioner really wants to know. We can all conceive a possible world where there is a mountain and where there is not a mountain, but what we can conceive doesn't change whether the mountain is there or not.

I'm going to hit you on the head with a frying pan. There would be no point in asking, "Hey is it possible that you could have been a girl" if I already knew you were a boy, because then it obviously wouldn't be possible in reference to this world. The question inherently supposes that a possible world is what is within question. Yes, in a possible world you could have been born a girl, but not in this world since you are a boy.

When a news forecaster says "There is a 50% chance of snow tomorrow" he is saying that in some possible worlds there will be snow tomorrow and in some possible worlds there will not. if we was talking about this world, then he would have to say "Tomorrow there is either a 100% chance that it will snow tomorrow or it will not, however since I do not know what will objectively happen tomorrow I really can't tell you which."
Nolite Timere
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2014 4:49:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure that possibility relates more to our knowledge of reality than reality itself.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!