(February 2, 2022 at 12:06 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(February 2, 2022 at 9:09 am)polymath257 Wrote: 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?
There's no logical problem whatsoever. The assertions may be unsound, but that's an evidentiary problem. As Angr pointed out, if a necessary being exists in one possible world it exists.. necessarily, in the set of all worlds. The statement "This being exists" is true of the warehouse if it's true of just one box in the warehouse.
That's possible worlds semantics - take it or leave it.
There is no logical rejection of this argument (though there is evidentiary rejection) outside of rejecting any other thing that possible worlds and modal logic suggests - the vast majority of which you probably wouldn;t think was an issue.
I’m happy to allow that necessary beings exist.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
