(November 13, 2019 at 8:20 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Possible worlds semantics explicitly invoke necessity rather than contingency, since a thing contingent on one possible world cannot be said, by possible worlds semantics, to be true. Mostly because you only need one counterexample to show a statement is false.
"God" isn't the problem in the free will/omniscience dilemma, he's just collateral damage.
Could you provide a concrete example or two to illustrate what you're saying? I'm not following you at this point. Counterexamples to X does not mean X is not contingently true.
