in Our past video We answered some of the most popular objection to theological Argument so In this video We're going to Look at objection that can appear to Be More Complicated but As You Will soon See They are Just as Easy to ref so Let's begin the first One I want to address is the skeptical approach of subs God in the Argument with an unsolved mathematical problem like gob conjecture skeptic Will say that Since It's Possible gob conjecture is true then modal Logic should also Dictate is actually True but that's absurd because we Just Can't
prove mathematical theories are True through modal Logic so Why should We Cone that modal Logic can Rally show God exists Well the problem with this parity is we cannot know ifb conjecture is true in a Possible World Since We cannot test an Infinite Set of Numbers to know if it is even coherent in one Possible World whereas with theological Properties of God We can evaluate them and know if They would make Sense in one Possible World These are two completely different subjects to know if Something is true in a Possible World We have to know
everything about it To Know whether It is logically coherent or not Since We do not know everything about These unsolved mathematical Problems We cannot be in a position To Know It is true in one Possible World in other Words God Can Exist in a Possible World because we can evaluate The Properties God would have We cannot evaluate an Infinite Set of Numbers and know if it is true or not so Problems like gob conjecture are Possible in an Epic Sense but not in a metaphysical Sense Moving to another obje there aad in the Properties of
God God form aad with either omnipotence or moral perfection first The Way They say God omnipotence is in contradiction with omnis is If God Is All knowing he change his mind meaning there is Something God Can't do therefore he Can't be omnipotent however the problem with this is it Once Again Asses omnipotence means can do me God Can do the logically impossible IT means God Is All powerful and do Anything that is logically Possible with Nature and Asking can God ches mind is the same as Asking can a being that Knows everything learn something new
Because changing your mind is a cognitive process involving The manipulation of knowledge resting in a different outcome god's knowledge cannot change over Time Because from the very moment it exists completely Perfect and the def Of omn of outcome Man it therefore the Fact God Can ch mind is More of the Fact that he Can't learn Anything New or make a Square Circle Now God omn his moral perfection skeptic Will argue If God Knows everything including the Future then he knew our entire Future Before it happened therefore Since our Futures were already known They were pred
God pred Evil and is the Cause ofil therefore is mor Perfect however are two Ways to ref this the first is to Point out this Results from a Limited View of omnis God doesn't simply know the Future God Knows every Future in other Words God Knows every Choice We will have and every Possible decision We Could make and every Possible Future that Could result From Every Possible decision but he Leaves The Freedom to us to decide Which possibility is actualized however I prefer The Other approach Which is that this objection Results from a misunderstanding of
Divine omnis God does not predict the Future from the past from the so To by wasting around one day toate the universe and determine everything already knowing What would Happen Rather God existing outside of Time actes All Time At Once it Can be said like this the past is already known the Future is Something that is unknown but has an Infinite number of possibilities and the present is the eliminator of those possibilities God the Future does not asled ising process P but Rather a knowledge that exists present and is actualized by Free Will the Future
for us exists as a web of possibilities whose outcome is known by God but not predely from the past but Rather postely from the present and Future The Mistake that is often Made is to confuse Man's understanding of his Actions with the knowledge possessed by a Divine being The Two are not the same Once This is understood this Paradox is resolved the main thing We Have To Remember God being outside of time is not Bound by it the same Way We are his omnis transcend a state of Time and is not Stuck in the past
so The Next objection was Put Forward by Dr AR dred ru necessity is not a Great making property Since contingent Things Can Have Great making Properties besides Necessary existence and it would be Ridiculous to Say something contingent like a Piece of Music by Mozart that has some Great making Properties would be better If It was Necessary however p s Williams says this Sounds an thing to say Because it necessarily ex Could moz Ask to Ace music that both is and is not the product of a contingent process of composition by a specific contingent person Which
is Of course an incer notion he Goes On thee that We must Remember that necessity is a Great making property for Anything that Could cer have it If It doesn't logically follow that something like a Piece of Music Could have Necessary existence there is no Reason to assume IT Might be able to All In All this does not show that Necessary existence is not a Great making property or that this property can be possessed by a being so The Next objection kept me thinking for a While When I first began to study The Argument some
skeptic Will argue Things that are logically Possible and being that They are logically Possible They contr god's existence They are based on Peter Van and wagan correct atheist Argument however the most popular form I've seen it in Goes like this It is there is a nons World Since there is Nothing in coherent Non If a is Non not ex World therefore God does not ex in every Possible World and therefore God is not necessary and instead is impossible therefore God is impossible Now The Basic point of this objection that even though theological Argument seems Logical
One Could form a Logical Argument like this one Which can is We Cone ex Because it seem Impossible Which i Age with however We need to clarify here that in theological Argument When philosophers say God Is Possible They are not Just saying God Is Possible Because the Concept of God Is Logical and we should Give The possibility of it the Benefit of the Doubt God Goes Beyond being logically Possible and is metaphysical reas to now does it con sad Pretty To Do metaphysical possibility Is generally to be more restri than Just being logically Possible so
few Things are metap physically Possible than are Just logically some philosophers will debate on when we can consider Something metaphysical Possible but a General R To Remember is is for something to Be metaphysical There needs to be additional Reason orid to other than we theological Argument is a metaphysical Argument so We Can't create an Argument in metaphysics Ring on Something Just being logically Possible luckily unlike this Argument Which can only Rely on giving Something that seems Logical The Benefit of the Doubt god's possibility is metaphysical Because There are additional reasons to think so For Example
Peter s Williams argues that the repeated failures of attempts to show that God Is an in coherent Concept Justify a Pis inference and some have been convinced by this Trent dcr Says Since All efforts to show that the Concept of God Is contr have failed Here to for i concluding Logical arguments at all much less highly Specialized forms of Logical calculi developed by Professional philosophers What do those Who know it but Don't Believe In God say they say that the Concept of God is in coherent I have not yet seen an even slightly plausible Argument
to that Effect until i do The OA will be to me I Might Add that I am a convert on this Argument I argu For Years that theological Argument was flawed until someone showed me the motal version I've Always followed Reason Wherever it LED and as usual it LED to God Now as Doc points out If One is not accom to Logical arguments we can also find an inference another Way another Good Reason is pointed out by JP mor and William Lane Craig in philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview Dr Craig points Out the The
Other arguments of Natural theology Raise The probability of god's possibility and provide a reasonable Foundation that God Is Possible Now this doesn't entirely Rest theological Argument On The Other arguments however as he points Out the theis arguments need not to be Taken to be like links in a Chain in Which one link follows another so that the Chain is Only as Strong as The weakest link Rather They are like links in a Code of Chain mail In which All The links reinforce One another so that the strength of the whole exceeds that of Any single
l theological Argument Might Play part in a cumulative case for theis In which a multitude of factors simultaneous consped to Lead One to the Global conclusion that God exists In that Sense ans was wrong in thinking that he had discovered a single Argument Which standing independent of All The Rest served to demonstrate god's existence in all his greatness nevertheless his Argument doesn't capsul The thrust of All The arguments Together to show that God The Supreme being exists The Reverse onic Argument also Fail for this reas the first prem says Possible God not Exist Since God
is not contingent This is then synonym saying is Possible God is impossible Which is a Logical claim but there is no metaphysical Reason to suggest this Since All attempts to argue God Is imposs failed so there is no Reason to think that it is Possible God is impossible other than it Just being a Logical claim but not a metaphysical One so Any parody of theological Argument doesn't up to IT Because All parodies Rely on giving Logical CL arent reas isys Possible Now The Final objection I want to Look at seems a Last res attempt to
debunk the Argument skeptic Will Alvin to Try to say that he thinks The Argument doesn't work in the Nature of necessity planting says It Must Be conceded however that Argument a success Natural Draw accepted by nearly every s Man or perhaps nearly every Rational Man h our verdict on These Reform versions of an Argument must be as follows They cannot perhaps be said to prove or establish their conclusion Now as One would have Guess This quote is out of contex planting Goes on to Say Something very important but Since It is Rational to Accept their
Central premise They do Show that it is Rational to Accept The conclusion and perhaps that is all that can be expected from Any such Argument planting is not saying the Argument was of time it actually do What is supposed to do The Point is making is Argument cannot and should be used to God ex like One can prove the Earth is Round but as he says at the end of the quote the Argument shows that the belief In God Is completely Rational theological Argument is not a way to prove God exists in Fact No Argument
in Natural theology can be said to prove God Exist like One proves a Scientific Fact The arent and Natural theology is the All doing isin out acting Exist of God is More Rational conclusion than concluding God does not Exist Since it Can't be proven either Way so in conclusion The Argument is valid and does exactly What it is supposed to Do It shows That Since God Is Possible It is Far more Rational to Accept that he exists than to Accept he doesn't ex to Deny This is Toy the most Logical and Rational conclusion Any dra
R
