Without God, Nothing is Impossible

Firstly, consider that all things which are actual are also possible. This should be obvious enough. Is there anything that is impossible but also actual? No. Impossible things, by definition, cannot be actual. So we can say that possibility is logically prior to actuality.

With me so far? OK.

Now, secondly, note that if something is impossible, then there is something else that explains why that thing is impossible. In other words, there is no brute impossibility. Impossibility always has an explanation.

Think about it: it's impossible to be alive and dead at the same time. But why is it impossible? Ultimately, because of the laws of logic. Think about anything you believe to be impossible - there is always something else that makes it impossible.

Here's another thing: whatever is able to make something impossible must be necessary. So, it is logically impossible to be both dead and alive because the law of non-contraction (which implies that contradictions cannot be true) is logically necessary. We can say that the laws of logic determine the scope/bounds of logical possibility. And to determine possibility is to make certain things impossible.

But recall that we have already noted that possibility precedes actuality. What this implies is that nothing actual can determine the bounds of possibility. This implies that nothing is impossible in any real sense; in other words, all things are possible.

This is only the case, though, if a self-sufficient God doesn't exist. If God exists, then He would transcend our modal categories. He would be purely actual and possibility would be wholly determined by Him. Without God, though, all things are possible.

And this unrestricted possibility has devastating epistemological consequences. One of those consequences is that it destroys any coherent metaphysical foundation for logic. I discuss this in-depth in my book, If Logic then God. You can grab a copy here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more