tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post7779741077704161641..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Question about Possible WorldsRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-24008633900841769152011-11-12T21:50:58.313-05:002011-11-12T21:50:58.313-05:00Hey Dr. Mike! :)
I agree. I also wish to reitera...Hey Dr. Mike! :) <br /><br />I agree. I also wish to reiterate that this was a question posed to me by a Christian and I did not get a chance to see the full context. It's why I tried to explore the various alternatives of meaning.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-54131214192126900072011-11-12T19:40:15.469-05:002011-11-12T19:40:15.469-05:00I agree with treating 'this' in this case ...I agree with treating 'this' in this case like an indexical. That seems to be exactly what's happening to me as well. I think the more interesting case would use something like David Lewis's modal realism. Then, you could probably say that any particular thing would exist necessarily (in some sense) in virtue of being a possible thing. It's hard to see where that atheist would have been going with this, though.Mike Gagehttp://foxholeatheism.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-53307248829798585422011-11-12T17:27:41.908-05:002011-11-12T17:27:41.908-05:00Hi Daniel thanks for the comments! I agree with yo...Hi Daniel thanks for the comments! I agree with your take concerning nothingness being instantiated. <br /><br />I am also not aware of the full context of the atheist's proffered argument, so I admit I am being speculative here. But I think the argument is offered in an attempt to avoid God. Like saying, "the universe is necessary because this actual world is necessary." But that's just a guess, and as you rightfully point out, the only valid conclusion from the argument proffered is that <i>something</i> necessarily exists (that is, at best, something holds its existence in a necessary mode, not contingent), which is what the theist holds. But I'm not even sure we can be that generous for his argument, as it may only be the case that his valid conclusion is "necessarily, something exists" (again, as a <i>de dicto</i> statement).Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-68454863827762998482011-11-12T14:33:55.152-05:002011-11-12T14:33:55.152-05:00I wonder if the atheist is confused about what is ...I wonder if the atheist is confused about what is meant by a "world". It does not mean planet or even physical reality, but merely, as you say, a consistent set of true and false propositions. Unless the atheist proposes that propositions actually exist like abstract objects, then what is to stop us from asserting that there is a possible world in which the proposition "Nothingness is here instantiated"? If there is such a possible world, then the atheist has by no means shown existence to be necessary.<br /><br />But suppose he does succeed in showing “existence itself” to be in some sense necessary. To whose existence does he refer? All that follows from this is that something exists necessarily, which is what the theist has always maintained. I don’t see that this could be constructed as an argument for atheist unless it begs the question, in which case it is just a bad argument for atheism.Daniel Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01204413547765314287noreply@blogger.com