RE: Modal ontological argument
February 1, 2022 at 8:22 pm
(This post was last modified: February 1, 2022 at 8:23 pm by vulcanlogician.)
I think 3 & 4 are the sticking points. Like, that's where the fishy smell is coming from. I have serious objections to both premises.
It might even be equivocation... playing with the world "possible." When we discuss hypothetical worlds, we usually do so to demonstrate some principle or other. In principle, what flies in some possible world ought to fly in our world, if our world were to be like that possible world in some way. So possible worlds are a good way of determining what is priciply true. But actually true is a different animal.
It might even be equivocation... playing with the world "possible." When we discuss hypothetical worlds, we usually do so to demonstrate some principle or other. In principle, what flies in some possible world ought to fly in our world, if our world were to be like that possible world in some way. So possible worlds are a good way of determining what is priciply true. But actually true is a different animal.
