Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nicene Nerd

The Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga

Recommended Posts

David Lewis does this, which… I'm not well-read enough in the literature on modality to criticize that move theoretically. I'm just reluctant to accept the existence of a universe corresponding to literally every possibility without really compelling evidence. "It makes modal logic work really nicely" is not compelling evidence.

 

Apart from Lewis… No. I can't think of anyone who thinks that possible worlds are literal worlds.

Do you believe that this is the only reality that can exist or have ever existed? (I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm just curious.)

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe that this is the only reality that can exist or have ever existed? (I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm just curious.)

 

I tend to believe that this is the only reality. I find no compelling evidence or reason for another reality. 

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe that this is the only reality that can exist or have ever existed? (I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm just curious.)

I think that ultimately there is only one world, since 'world' just analytically means "everything there is." There might be what physicists term multiple "realities" that are distinct fields of space (or something; I ain't no scientist). But I don't think it's rational to say that these realities are copies of each other in the way conceived in cheap scifi because that would imply, say, that there are two men who are distinct but who are also both Socrates. In my mind, this is saying that there exists an x such that x is not x, which is silly. There is one and only one me, and there was one and only one Socrates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that ultimately there is only one world, since 'world' just analytically means "everything there is." There might be what physicists term multiple "realities" that are distinct fields of space (or something; I ain't no scientist). But I don't think it's rational to say that these realities are copies of each other in the way conceived in cheap scifi because that would imply, say, that there are two men who are distinct but who are also both Socrates. In my mind, this is saying that there exists an x such that x is not x, which is silly. There is one and only one me, and there was one and only one Socrates.

 

I feel as if sci-fi never takes proper account of phenomenological consciousness. What happens when a person sends himself back through time to meet himself? Such a scenario has to take a nominalist view of consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel as if sci-fi never takes proper account of phenomenological consciousness. What happens when a person sends himself back through time to meet himself? Such a scenario has to take a nominalist view of consciousness.

 

You and Chris make my life so much more interesting. I would never have applied philosophical concepts to sci-fi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and Chris make my life so much more interesting. I would never have applied philosophical concepts to sci-fi.

 

I think they actually teach an undergrad Sci-Fi and Philosophy course at Rutgers University, which (along with NYU) happens to be the top program for analytical philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they actually teach an undergrad Sci-Fi and Philosophy course at Rutgers University, which (along with NYU) happens to be the top program for analytical philosophy.

 

Interesting. I'll add those places to the list of schools I'm looking to transfer to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×