tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post113591956996231489..comments2023-08-05T21:48:58.831-04:00Comments on Philochristos: The transcendental argument for the existence of GodSam Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136794992849459722006-01-09T04:23:00.000-04:002006-01-09T04:23:00.000-04:00I can see how it could be used to defend attribute...I can see how it could be used to defend attributes like his knowledge, power, and goodness, but I don't see how it could be used to defend his triunity. You'd have to come up with some way to demonstrate that triunity is greater, in some sense, than being two, four, or some other number.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136431835991559092006-01-04T23:30:00.000-04:002006-01-04T23:30:00.000-04:00Jeff, I'm not sure I follow the argument. Maybe i...Jeff, I'm not sure I follow the argument. Maybe it could be reworded a little. You say that every degreed quality of God must be had to the fullest capacity. Granted that triunity is better than singularity, couldn't we say that four is better than three? Or that five is better than four? If so, would it follow that God is four or five persons? Why is three better than two or four?<BR/><BR/>SamSam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136326655629137622006-01-03T18:17:00.000-04:002006-01-03T18:17:00.000-04:00Thanks I'll have to read that; I usually am a Plan...Thanks I'll have to read that; I usually am a Plantinga fan. <BR/><BR/>You're right, Sam, in pointing out that the word 'contingent' is used in different ways. I guess by 'contingent' I mean "it's non-existence is not logically impossible"<BR/><BR/>I agree that my probelms would be over if there was a convincing form of the ontological argument, but I've always been somewhat unsure about those arguments. Most of them are circular (Is God defined as necessary because he exists in all possible worlds, or does he exist in all possible worlds because he is defined as necessary?)<BR/><BR/>Also, if God is a necessary being then wouldn't his qualities be necessary as well? But what is necessary about tri-unity?<BR/><BR/>At the same time I realize, I'd be no better off being an atheist... I'd have a harder time explaining why the universe exists (it certainly is not necessary).Elvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04161012426679660862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136300309439481012006-01-03T10:58:00.000-04:002006-01-03T10:58:00.000-04:00Jeff, if you define "contingent" as "depending on ...Jeff, if you define "contingent" as "depending on something else for its existence," and "necessary" as "impossible to be otherwise," then it seems to me there's a third category, because "contingent" and "necessary" aren't opposites by those definitions. The oposite of the above definition of "contingent" is "Not depending on something else for its existence," and it seems to me the third possible category would be things that are not logically necessary, but that exist as brute facts.<BR/><BR/>If the TAG argument is sound or if any version of the ontological argument is sound, then God is <I>logically</I> necessary, meaning it's <I>impossible</I> for him not to exist. You should check out Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument in his book, <I>God, Freedom, and Evil</I>. Maybe I'll write a blog about that. It's a neat argument.<BR/><BR/>SamSam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136277870898787992006-01-03T04:44:00.000-04:002006-01-03T04:44:00.000-04:00Okay this issue touches on something I've been thi...Okay this issue touches on something I've been thinking about recently:<BR/><BR/>Is God a contigent or necessary being? If he is contingent then why does he exist rather than not? If he is necessary, then it should be impossible for me to imagine a logically coherent world in which he does not exist - but it's not (as far as I'm aware). <BR/><BR/>If you could help me out with that, it would be swell.Elvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04161012426679660862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136073442535820822005-12-31T19:57:00.000-04:002005-12-31T19:57:00.000-04:00LOL Maybe so!LOL Maybe so!Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1136065214956134102005-12-31T17:40:00.000-04:002005-12-31T17:40:00.000-04:00No comments yet.maybe you should write about calvi...No comments yet.<BR/><BR/>maybe you should write about calvinism again :Pdaleliophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533665826521400068noreply@blogger.com