What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[GrandizerII]

I should not have used the word **possible** marked above.  I see now it could create confusion when someone is new to the terminology--I was simply modifying the phrase 'alternative reality' symmetrically with 'possible worlds'. Just take that word out of the sentence.

Ok? Nothing changes anyway. I said nothing about actual parallel universes if that's what you mean by "alternative reality". And this whole thing's a red herring. Want another definition from the first link I provided in my previous response? Here you go:

A possible world is a complete way things might have gone, past, present, and future, down to the last detail, everywhere in the universe.

Complete way of things in the universe/world. Are we done with red herrings, Steve? Or do you want to keep bolding/emphasizing the words that suit what you're saying while ignoring the "elephant in the room" that I just bolded here?

You don't seem to clearly understand what you posted. I highlighted a couple of phrases. I didn't say anything different than what you posted. You have to start with the understanding that this is a modal logic term and until you get the hang of it should be prefaced with "purely logically speaking...".

I've perused several websites trying to find one that contradicted how I view possible world. None has yet to emerge. All the ones I've checked seem to support how I've been viewing possible worlds. Perhaps you're the one confused?
 

In addition, you don't understand the other sentence you posted: "A statement is necessarily true if and only if it is true in every possible world." Exactly--for the PoE to succeed, the proposition that everyone could always choose the good must be necessarily true. It is not and that is why the PoE argument fails.

Bolded mine. I see what's going on here.

If you go back to what I said earlier, the proposition I stated was "all humans freely choose good all the time". No "could" here. With the "could" included in the proposition, you are correct. But then again, it's advisable to avoid using words like "can" and "could" in these propositions since they basically refer to possibility anyway, which leads to redundancy ... and confusion like what we saw just now.

True propositions are those that are true in the actual world (for example: "Richard Nixon became president in 1969").
False propositions are those that are false in the actual world (for example: "Ronald Reagan became president in 1969"). (Reagan did not run for president until 1976, and thus couldn't possibly have been elected.)
Possible propositions are those that are true in at least one possible world (for example: "Hubert Humphrey became president in 1969"). (Humphrey did run for president in 1968, and thus could have been elected.) This includes propositions which are necessarily true, in the sense below.
Impossible propositions (or necessarily false propositions) are those that are true in no possible world (for example: "Melissa and Toby are taller than each other at the same time").
Necessarily true propositions (often simply called necessary propositions) are those that are true in all possible worlds (for example: "2 + 2 = 4"; "all bachelors are unmarried").[1]
Contingent propositions are those that are true in some possible worlds and false in others (for example: "Richard Nixon became president in 1969" is contingently false and "Hubert Humphrey became president in 1969" is contingently true).

Another example of possible proposition is "Ronald Reagan became president in 1969". It is also contingently false.

Same with the proposition I stated.

The possible world terminology and modal logic vocab is difficult and it took me awhile to understand whatever arguments I was reading the first time I encountered it. Don't read a sentence and think you got it. You need to read a whole article on the topic complete with examples.

But that wasn't really the reason for the confusion that occurred here. The confusion came by way of you not paying attention to the wording of my proposition.

And as far as your closing insistence that I have something I need to prove, I do not. The fact that your proposition is not necessarily true is what defeats the argument.

But you didn't read my proposition properly, and that's where the failure lies.

---

Don't be dense. I asserted no such thing. Can you not see how it is a logical contradiction to make a choice with no prior determining factor? I am trying to argue logic with you, without presupposing naturalism. Focus, Steve.

You keep asserting that it is illogical. By process of elimination (because you cannot articulate your point clearly), are you just saying that because our decisions are informed by circumstance, knowledge, memory, etc., they are not "free"?  If so, then you are just redefining 'decision' to be something impossible. That's one way of wining an argument--redefine the words until they have no meaning and then say "see...it's not logical".

No, that's not at all what I said! Other readers understood me ok, so it is you only who is not getting it.

I am a compatibilist: a determinist who says we have "free will". Therefore, I do not at all argue that because choices are informed by certain prior factors (particularly mental faculties), they are not "free".

The thing is that you are happy to call choice that which can have no prior cause. This is what libertarian free will is supposed to be. The problem is that you can't really call that a choice since it's random. A choice, in the meaningful sense, is the outcome of a process of deliberation using the faculties of one's mind to lead to that choice. Without that, you can't make a choice, and thereby you can't say you exercise free will.

But suppose you instead were a compatibilist and fully agreed with me with regards to free will, then you can no longer use that free will in your free will defense.