Conceivability arguments depend on imaginers correctly tracking metaphysical necessity, but Kripke's a posteriori necessities show our modal intuitions systematically fail at this.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conceivability arguments(as the argumentative strategy being discussed): A type of philosophical argument that says: if we can imagine or think through a scenario in our heads, it might tell us something important about what's actually possible in reality.
Kripke: Kripke refers to Saul Kripke, an influential American philosopher and logician known for revolutionizing how we think about names, meaning, and possibility. He argued that names like "Albert Einstein" refer directly to the actual person rather than through descriptions of their properties, which changed philosophy fundamentally. His work also introduced "possible worlds" as a way to understand concepts like necessity and possibility, making him one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century.
Modal intuitions(evidence the theist relies on to support their case): Our gut feelings about what's possible, impossible, or necessary in the world.
a posteriori necessities(Used to illustrate cases where imagination can mislead us about what is genuinely possible.)

Based on where you are in your exploration