![AlvinPlantinga[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/w5q10ue.jpg "AlvinPlantinga[1].jpg")
I've been reading about modal logic, and modal ontological arguments strike me as interesting, such as Alvin Plantinga's argument for the existence of God. I've noticed some atheists seem to think that the same sort of argument can be used to argue the non-existence of God, but I don't trust that they're not making a fundamental, logical mistake--particularly in the form of modal logic. Here's an example of an argument an atheist sent me:
1. If God exists, God is necessary.
2. It is possibly the case that God doesn't exist.
3. Therefore God is not necessary.
4. Therefore God doesn't exist (modus tollens, from 1)
So /lit/, what's wrong with this argument?
One of the modal axioms its based on is dubious, either S4 or S5. I don't remember.
you remember those days hangin out at the village green.......... engineer boots leather jacket and tight blue jeans
both premises are vague (and dubious under most interpretations)
>>7511825
1. If God doesn't exists, God is unnecessary.
2. It is possibly the case that God exists.
3. Therefore God is necessary.
4. Therefore God exists (modus tollens, from 1)
may I present, the atheist's nightmare, modus banana.
There are no logical errors in the argument.
>>7512400
The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation of epistemic and metaphysical possibility. If premise 2 is taken to imply epistemic possibility, 3 does not follow from 2, because metaphysical modalities cannot follow from epistemic possibilities. If premise 2 is take to imply metaphysical possibility, then it is baseless, because it does not make explicit why we should accept that it is metaphysically possible that God doesn't exist. If God does exist, which is epistemically possible, then it is not metaphysically possible that he doesn't.
But leave it to an atheist to say an atheistic argument is perfectly fine when it's not, because I'm sure good atheistic arguments are hard to come by.
>>7511825
if god was god it would be able to exist without having to exist
meaning god is beyond the existence / non-existence dichotomy, really beyond all polarity
>>7512491
It's equivocation if you're too retarded to figure out the context and don't understand the principle of charity. One of the premises being unsupported is not a logical error. This is basically autism: the post.
>>7512400
>There are no logical errors in the argument.
only with respect to your choice of validity of inferences.
>>7512522
This is even more autistic.
>>7512514
If "possibly" is taken to imply either meaning of "possibly," then the argument is either a non sequitur or baseless. I also explained how it is possible that it is not metaphysically possible that God doesn't exist. So premise 2 is baseless and I've shown an example of how it is possibly wrong.
What's retarded is implying it doesn't matter that premise 2 is baseless, particularly when I've shown how it could be wrong.
I'm sure you'll find nothing wrong with this argument either:
1. If you are not fucking retarded, you are necessarily not fucking retarded.
2. It is possibly the case that you are fucking retarded.
3. Therefore you are not necessarily not fucking retarded.
4. Therefore you are fucking retarded.
>>7512531
>I know nothing about formal logic
>>7511825
>1. If God exists, God is necessary.
Hopelessly vague
