Posted: Apr 24, 2011 1:25 am
Allemann wrote:THWOTH wrote:Hiya Allemann. Would you care to expand a little on what you mean when you say that most philosophers will tell us that "...God, if he exists, is a metaphysically necessary being..." ?
If God was contingent, then he would depend on something outside of him, making him not the ultimate ground of being and therefore not God.
Hmm. Isn't that just a way of saying if God exists then he must exists >> if he must exist then he does exist? This can be asserted without reference to the nature of his being but it is still an assertion and claim which rely on each other for support. As Mr Almond says, of course God has to exist for those that believe in him, and yet invoking his supposed necessity in the Kalam program seems more like a bolstering exercise than a conclusion - a conflation of emotional,intellectual or social necessity for a logical necessity. How might one get from 'if God exists' to 'God exists' without addressing the supposed nature of God's being?
Anyone?
