(August 6, 2024 at 12:17 pm)Sheldon Wrote:-and again, no. For this type of inference to work "whatever x" has to be "possibly necessary". Cant just be "whatever x" because that's not how the modal operator works.(August 6, 2024 at 10:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Is the unicorn a necessary being? Then the argument works the same way. Is it not? Then the s5 theory of modal logic does not apply.Yes, sorry that was my point, if we accept that X is possible then the argument works, no matter what X is.
Quote:This of course then requires that first step, that someone believe X is possible, which explains why apologists so often are amazed when I don't accept the conclusion of the argument, it's because I would first need to believe a deity is possible.-in some possible world. It's actually pretty difficult to logically reject that one out of hand - if only because possible world semantics are expansive.
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that what you reject is not that an x could be possible in some possible world..but that you don't think or don't believe that gods exist (or are possible) in the actual world - this world. We could make a more neutral statement and say that you aren't convinced that gods are possible or exist in the actual world. Thus the request for a demonstration...but the modal argument is an a priori argument..so... Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not an agnostic - I personally take it as a settled fact that gods do not exist and are not even possible.
My interest in the argument has nothing to do with gods. What I do think is interesting is that a person can logically believe that it is impossible for a unicorn to exist in the actual world -and- grant that unicorns may be possible or possibly necessary in some possible world. This sets up a logical paradox in the context of modal logic as it prunes qualifiers.
Quote:They shouldn't, but I have encountered people who do seem genuinely surprised I remain unconvinced a deity exists.Sure....but to be fair....it's not surprising that a successful argument fails to convince a human being, lol. We could repeat the exercize with the mt/mp switch and we will find that even though we accept it as a "rule of logic" it will yield conclusions that assault our intuitions and may not reflect reality.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
