(April 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm)SteveII Wrote: The hangup you have is that a possible world does not mean a complete possible alternate reality. It is a term used in modal logic to test propositions- and could be paraphrase as "logically speaking, the world could have been this way".
Go to this link:
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/facult...ES2006.pdf
How do they define possible worlds? Like this:
Quote:Possible worlds are complete ways that things might be.
Want a dictionary definition instead? No problem.
Quote:(in modal logic) a semantic device formalizing the notion of what the world might have been like. A statement is necessarily true if and only if it is true in every possible world
From:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio...ible-world
Quote:One last try from a different angle: Possible world =/= feasible world. Feasible worlds are a subset of possible worlds. So while the proposition that everyone always chooses good is true in some possible world, it very well might not be feasible for God to create such a world because when God creates the actual world (notice I don't say "that world" because there is no such thing as that world) it very well might out that the 8th person freely chooses to do evil and the chain reaction of that evil has trillions of consequences. And, if in his foreknowledge, God can arrange the 8th person not to be tempted by x, it might be that that action causes the 7th or the 435th person to make a different choice...and so on.
Ignoring the "possible world vs. feasible world" red herring, we still have the problem of you not demonstrating that it is not feasible that all human beings can choose good all the time. All you did basically was speculate about consequences of one person choosing good vs the same person choosing evil. Speculating is not demonstrating. Try harder next time please.
