Consider the meaning of the word “possible”…
“It’s possible for humans to invent a time machine” COULD be the equivalent of:
(1) “The necessisary preconditions for humans inventing a time machine, are present.” which is a positive claim in need of justification.
OR it could mean that
(2) “humans Inventing a time machine is not necessarily impossible.” Which means that there exists no 100% certain truth in contradiction to humans inventing time travel.
I have noticed that theism often depends on our inability to distinguish between the two.
Consider this:
A) “It is possible that there exists a god”… most atheists would be able to agree with this statement…
B) “given god exists, it is possible for God to porform miracles” again we agree with such a statement.
C) “It is possible that miracles HAVE been porformed by god.” this too seems reasonable…
BUT… Here’s the problem…
A uses the word “possible” as understood in (2)… B uses “possible” as understood in (1)…
But C is not so clear cut… If an atheist were to agree to C (as is understood in (2)) then the theist will take it to mean (1)… going on to present “historical evidence” without first establishing the positive claim made given we understand it as (1).
A precondition of god porforming miracles is the existence of god…
A precondition for humans inventing stories about miracles porformed by god, is motive.
Motive exists…
But it’s only possible(2) that god exists…
I’m still trying to refine this argument… any help would be apritiated