Please read this article and and the rest before you answer.
Possible world
Here's an excerpt:
Now add these premises:
In a prior thread I included "god" as something within the scope of a possible world. But I'd like us to consider God as transcending possible worlds. Here's another excerpt:
The reason I want to know if the idea of Modal Logic is evil is because I think it can conceptually include a different revelation - a different scripture. It could include God not revealing himself at all. The only thing that a possible world of modal logic requires is God not being apposed to the law of contradiction. From this we can still use the ideas of "possibility", "necessity", and "contingency" as described in the article.
Intellectually, many will have trouble with the idea of "possible worlds" and God. Some will insist on "actualism". That is - God could not have made the world any different than the way He did. In model logic, Christianity is not necessary - since it is defined by the world as God made it - that is, it included the Scriptures. I don't think the Bible is necessary in possible worlds. Does that make the idea of model logic evil? I'm not sure. It does make it un-biblical. But is not the only alternative to modal logic "actualism" and all it implies?
P.S. Consider Option 3 to read: Not sure. I think there may be another alternative way of looking at this.
Possible world
Here's an excerpt:
Be careful. This does not mean that possible worlds exist, but that possible worlds could have been.Those who use the concept of possible worlds consider the actual world to be one of the many possible worlds. For each distinct way the world could have been, there is said to be a distinct possible world; the actual world is the one we in fact live in.
Now add these premises:
- A possible world is a universe as God could have made it.
- The actual world is the universe God did make.
In a prior thread I included "god" as something within the scope of a possible world. But I'd like us to consider God as transcending possible worlds. Here's another excerpt:
I'm not interested in the conclusion that this is the "best possible world" since that's too ambiguous a statement. I just want to consider the idea of possible worlds being the way God could have made the world should He have chosen to do so.The idea of possible worlds is most commonly attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, who spoke of possible worlds as ideas in the mind of God and (in)famously used the notion to argue that our actually created world must be "the best of all possible worlds".
The reason I want to know if the idea of Modal Logic is evil is because I think it can conceptually include a different revelation - a different scripture. It could include God not revealing himself at all. The only thing that a possible world of modal logic requires is God not being apposed to the law of contradiction. From this we can still use the ideas of "possibility", "necessity", and "contingency" as described in the article.
Intellectually, many will have trouble with the idea of "possible worlds" and God. Some will insist on "actualism". That is - God could not have made the world any different than the way He did. In model logic, Christianity is not necessary - since it is defined by the world as God made it - that is, it included the Scriptures. I don't think the Bible is necessary in possible worlds. Does that make the idea of model logic evil? I'm not sure. It does make it un-biblical. But is not the only alternative to modal logic "actualism" and all it implies?
P.S. Consider Option 3 to read: Not sure. I think there may be another alternative way of looking at this.
Last edited: