Without an independent route to genuine possibility—beyond bare conceptual consistency—P2 of both arguments reduces to the undefended assertion that the conclusion is possible, rendering the argument circular.

?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.

Bare conceptual consistency(explains a weak standard that isn't sufficient to prove something is really possible): When an idea doesn't contradict itself on its surface, but that doesn't mean it could actually exist or happen.
Genuine possibility(distinguishes between what's logically consistent and what could truly occur): Something that could actually happen or be real in the world, not just something that sounds like it doesn't contradict itself.
Independent route(refers to needing evidence for a claim that doesn't depend on assuming the claim is already true): A separate, standalone way of proving or establishing something, rather than relying on the thing you're trying to prove in the first place.
P2(Provides the truth conditions for proposition (7), identified as proposition (7): George Bush does not exist.): The principle that proposition (7) is true if and only if George Bush does not exist — a modalized instance of the Tarski truth-schema 's is true iff s'.

Based on where you are in your exploration