A Modal Cosmological Argument

[Crandaddy]

I am no modal logician but if nothingness is not a possible world then maybe the necessary being is the formal requirement that in each world the world set must have at least one element.

The necessary being is simply the being that would serve as the truthmaker for every possible true contingent proposition in every possible world. So, it's not just that every possible world must have at least one element of whatever sort, but that this element must have certain “properties,” for lack of a better term.

But i supppse we are talking about a necessary element rather than there being at least one element necessarily cf modal fallacy?

The element itself would be necessary. It would be one and the same element that would exist in every possible world. This is why I mention in my OP that I don't think that non-indexical propositions can shift truthmakers. Indexicals are basically words or expressions that can refer to different things in different contexts, e.g. the indexical “my” in “my CF pseudonym is Crandaddy.” If I were to assert this proposition, it would be true; if you were to assert it, it would be false.


The proposition that “possibly, there are no physical objects,” in the sense that I mean it, is non-indexical, and thus it can't shift reference in different contexts. Since it can't shift reference in different contexts, it seems to me that its truth would be dependent upon one and the same truthmaker in every possible context.

 

[Lord Griggs]

G.K. Chesterton just pontificate. Defintion, faith, postulation and pontification cannot instantiate His existence.
The eternal quantum fields refute this argument.
Posts 86

 

[Wiccan_Child]

G.K. Chesterton just pontificate. Defintion, faith, postulation and pontification cannot instantiate His existence.
The eternal quantum fields refute this argument.
Posts 86

lolwut

 

[Crandaddy]

G.K. Chesterton just pontificate. Defintion, faith, postulation and pontification cannot instantiate His existence.
The eternal quantum fields refute this argument.
Posts 86

I'll take the Chesterton comparison as a compliment. G.K. Chesterton was a very wise man.

 

[Lord Griggs]

Chesterton I understand just was, like C.S. Lewis, a sophist. Why, it takes sophistry to postulate the supernatural. Farragoes of specious, sophisticated sophistry of woeful,wily woo cannot instantiate the supernatural, that superfluity noted for wanton murder!
So what then would be Chesterton's gargantuan,overwhelming arguments for the supernatural?


Oh, for other Chrisitan sites- Theo-sophical Ruminations, Always have a Reason and Reasoned Faith [WLC], Christian Boards, TheologyOnLine and TheologyWeb would welcome all.
Good will and blessings to all!
Posts 96, including my old Griggs1947