RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:24 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 5:24 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 2, 2022 at 4:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(February 2, 2022 at 2:58 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Your argument is invalid because premise 1 is false. A world that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist is an impossible world. (P and non-P) is never true,
That's not how possible world semantics works. And it's trivially easy to reformulate the same argument without the possible world semantics, so you're doubly wrong besides being ninja'd.
Asked and answered.
I am not sure I follow. possible world semantics..?? Maybe there are correct formulations of your argument, I just think the one you presented is plainly false. In one sentence you say that there exists a world where nothing exists i.e. there exists a possible world which doesn't exist. That's impossible by definition.
Anyway, I am not a proponent of ontological arguments. Just a tiny remark.
(February 2, 2022 at 5:15 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Read Dr. James A. Lindsay's book. Everyone agrees that Godel's logic is sound; you like to pound on open doors.
Fake Messiah dismissed all variants (including Godel's, then) because he thinks they contain fallacies.. so no, not everyone thinks Godel's logic is sound.
