3 ms·
In a logic setting, this is a much harder position to hold: it's much easier to assert the possibility of existence than the non-possibility of existence (which
by woodruffw 3y ago
In a logic setting, this is a much harder position to hold: it's much easier to assert the possibility of existence than the non-possibility of existence (which requires universal qualification).
The OA isn't a good argument for various reasons that others have noted above, but the possible existence of God (or Unicorns, or Colorless Green Ideas) isn't one of them.
- 082349872349872 3y agoOne way to show non-possibility, leveraging universality, is to show that for all A's, one can prove both B and something contradicting B. Example: ∀(G ∈ gods . card(G) = 3) ∧ ∀(G ∈ gods . card(G) < 3) Whether or not people have "proved" contradictory attributes for gods is left as an exercise for the reader... cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_et_Non https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_et_Non
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoIt's much easier to not exist than to exist.