RE: Terrible Atheist Argument #1
December 3, 2013 at 12:54 am
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2013 at 12:58 am by MindForgedManacle.)
It's basically a reductio, yes.
Ah, I was careless to some extent. I wasn't really using the S5 axiom in that argument exactly like Plantinga did. Plantinga uses 'possibly necessary' (i.e possibly necessarily true), while I'm simply using 'possibly' (i.e not necessarily necessary, but at least true in one possible world).
However, the argument can be reformulated:
Regardless, both still undermine Plantinga's argument, due to reasons already specified, namely that competing arguments are equally sound, even taking into consideration sometimes different used axioms.
Ah, I was careless to some extent. I wasn't really using the S5 axiom in that argument exactly like Plantinga did. Plantinga uses 'possibly necessary' (i.e possibly necessarily true), while I'm simply using 'possibly' (i.e not necessarily necessary, but at least true in one possible world).
However, the argument can be reformulated:
Quote:P1) If naturalism is possibly necessarily true, then it is actually true.
P2) Naturalism is possibly necessarily true.
C) Therefore, naturalism is true.
Regardless, both still undermine Plantinga's argument, due to reasons already specified, namely that competing arguments are equally sound, even taking into consideration sometimes different used axioms.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
-George Carlin
