# Possible Worlds?



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 27, 2004)

Many philosophers, Christian and non-Christian, today have been using this concept of possible worlds to argue for truth. One of the most famous uses of this is by Alvin Plantigia in his book "œGod, Freedom, and Evil." In this book Plantigia uses the possible world model to show that God and evil are not logical contradictions. 

Why question is: What do you think about the whole concept of Possible Worlds? Are they good? Are they intelligible? Should we or shouldn´t we use them?


----------



## Brian (Oct 28, 2004)

*Possible Worlds?*

This is, of course, only my humble opinion, but I think careful noetic use of the word can be maintained by faithful men and women. I think "possible worlds" terminology is helpful as a linguistic-conceptual tool to discuss other than what is and what-might-have-beens and what-might-yet-come-to-pass. But at no time should we allow such talk to encourage us to think that there are any other worlds but the one in which Jesus Christ came to redeem and honor His Namesake. So, as with most things, cautious use is the rule. Sounds a bit like the Puritans!


----------



## cupotea (Oct 29, 2004)

Hmm... It's POSSIBLE that we should use possible worlds... Aren't we right now?

"There are no possible worlds where we can coherently discuss possible worlds."


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JesusFan_
> Hmm... It's POSSIBLE that we should use possible worlds... Aren't we right now?



No we are not using them now. We are talking about whether or not the concept of possible worlds makes sense, NOT is it possible to use them. And just because someone says something does not mean it makes sense. In other words, just because I talk about there being possible worlds does not mean that the concept in coherent.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 29, 2004)

Ask God.

Its possible if you mean worlds as in planets with what humans would percieve as intelligent life. It is possible. There could other univers we dont know about there is probably more out there and out in Gods creation seperate from us we dont even know about or can fathom. 

blade


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 29, 2004)

Blade,
This idea of possible worlds is a philosophical concept that is used to talk about contingent and necessary truths. NOT are there other worlds.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 29, 2004)

my apologies 

blade


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 30, 2004)

No prob. !!!!


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 1, 2004)

I am going to have to go with the Mr. Brian Lund  concerning his cautious rule. To be completely honest the use of possible worlds in philosophy does not make much sense to me most of the time; simply because possible worlds are obviously not actuall and therefore do not have any bearing (in my opinion) on this one world that God chose to actuallize. However, as sure as the sun rises, I will find myself using possible worlds in some philosophical debate some where at some time.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 1, 2004)

no1special18 ,
Please click on the link at the bottom of my post for signature requirements.

Thanks,
SPB


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 1, 2004)

I do not deny that possible worlds truly do exist, it is their argumentative value that I disagree with. It is possible that Clinton will die at age 87, that does set forth a possible world. However, the possible world where clinton will die at age 87 has no bearing on how we view the actuall world that we are in, because it is equally possible that Clinton dies at age 80. So unless Lewis is right that possible worlds are of the same kind as actuall worlds, then possible worlds (as abstract object, or as a way things could be or could have been) hold no bearing on the way things are and have been; with this goes my presuppositon that things that it does little good to speculate on things that might be.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_the point isn't whether they exist. The point is that if you claim something is *necessarily* true then it would have to hold, theoretically, in all possible worlds. If it is contingent then it wouldn't have to be that way in all possible worlds. Ex: Brown hair color on John Edwards is a contingent truth and would not *have* to be that way. The law of non-contradiction is necessary and thus would hold in all possible worlds.


So the whole point in speculating a proposition in all possible worlds is to see if the proposition passes the test of the law of non-contradiction?


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 4, 2004)

Still, it seems that whether something is necessary or contigent in all possible worlds is irelevant. It matters not what is necessary or contigent in possible worlds, because those worlds, have no bearing on what reality is. Of course a necessary being is necessary in possible worlds, but what does that tell us, nothing. We have taken no steps to develop toward developing an argument that there is a necessary being.


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 4, 2004)

(To add on to the post right above that I had to prematurely abadon earlier for time reasons) 

For an example of what I am talking about; I think it was Hasker (it might have been Vaninwagon) who said that there could be a "Know No" on a possible world. This Know NO has certain knowledge that a necessary being does not exist. Therefore, since necessary beings are necessary in all worlds, there is no necessary being. All that has to be done is to propose the opposite: there is a Know Yes in a possible world that has certain knowledge that a necessary being does exist. Therefore a necessary being exists. Of course not both of these can be true, but how do you distinguish which possible world should be taken as the correct possible world.

Further more, if possible worlds could be called possible realities (I am not sure they can, this is just speculation) then it seems that a necessary being could exist in one possible world A, but not possible world B. For possible world A to exist X has to exist, therefore Xis a necessary being. However, it is possible that possible world B does not need X in order to exist, therefore X is not a necessary being. Again that thought was something I was chewing on, if I am going wrong somewhere (and it is worth your all's time) I would like to know what you think. 

Clarifying: I believe that possible worlds do exist (in the not actual sense, obviously). I realize that I just used possible worlds in the paragraph directly above. I think (unless I am actually right about necessity and possible worlds) that a necessary being has to be necessary in all possilbe worlds. I do not, however, see any bearing that possible worlds have, as far as arguing positively for anything (accept for possible worlds themselves).


----------

