(February 1, 2022 at 3:32 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Platinga doesn't make any basic mistakes in his argument. The form is valid. Hence it's somewhat misleading designation as a successful argument. From it being possible that it's necessary that p, a person can infer that it's necessary that p.
The problem is in the assumption that it is possible that there is a necessary being. THAT is problematic. To be 'necessary' means it happens in all possible worlds and to be 'possible' means it happens in *some* possible world.
So what does it even mean to be possible to be necessary?
