It does not follow from something being logically possible that it is true even if that something, in the case of God, would hypothetically be the greatest of all beings. Now, logically impossible things cannot be or have been true, so concepts that contradict the laws of logic (and themselves) cannot be true either way. The basic concept of God is not logically incoherent: it does not contradict itself or the logical axioms that cannot be false, these axioms being what makes self-contradiction impossible. Still, that God is possible is not what makes a deity's existence true or verifiable. It is only in light of logically necessary truths about contradiction, causality, and infinity that it can be known that there is an uncaused cause, not the fact that it would still be hypothetically (aka logically) possible for God to exist even if someone did not have this knowledge.
It is actually reason, not God, that is necessary even in hypotheticals. In order for it to be true even hypothetically that one thing follows from another, reason must already be true. There would otherwise be nothing at all to make anything follow or not follow from even a false, contradictory, or speculated premise. As the only things that cannot be false due to their own inherent nature, logical axioms and broader logical truths of course cannot be false in any case without still being metaphysically and epistemologically correct in the hypothetical scenario in question, and yet no one needs to dwell on hypothetical beings or situations without making assumptions to discover this. That a logical axiom's falsity would involve its truth already proves this self-verifying, self-necessary nature without any kind of alternate or imagined thing more precise than this.
Again, nothing would have to follow from anything even in hypotheticals if the laws of logic did not govern necessity, and if nothing intrinsically true dictated truth and possibility, nothing would or could be true! That nothing is true, though, would still require that something is true, namely that truth does not exist in any form, and thus the logical axiom that some things are true cannot be false. The ontological argument for God's existence erroneously treats a divine being in the same way, not that there is anything in the first place that would make a being a deity other than simply an exotic or very powerful supernatural entity other than specifically being an uncaused cause. That God is logically possible is not why he does or must exist. He exists by necessity as a logical prerequisite to non-eternal things (like the universe or time) begining to exist because self-creation, infinite regress, and coming into existence uncaused are all impossible.
Moreover, the other qualities ascribed to God as part of his greatness by those who adhere to the ontological argument are only assumed. After all, since God's nature is the only possible metaphysical grounding for objective values, what is morally good is not what dictates if God exists. It is whether God has a moral nature and what that nature is that dictates what, if anything, is good. Possibility alone will never reveal such things, although logical possibility is what God hinges on. A maximally great being that exists in reality is certainly greater in one sense than one that "exists" only as a concept. This still does not necessitate or even hint at God existing. Certain elements of the ontological argument are true, yes, just with regard to the laws of logic--it is impossible for the laws of logic to be false, so of course there is no hypothetical that does not already rely on reason bring true.
No comments:
Post a Comment