Transworld Depravity

Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Transworld Depravity

I have recently come across the wikipedia page describing how Alvin Plantinga argues that the concept of transworld depravity shows that the christian god is logically consistent with the existence of evil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

 

One of the first questions it raises to me is: wtf does transworld depravity mean? According to wikipedia, it is:

 

Wikipedia wrote:
A person P suffers from transworld depravity if and only if the following holds: for every world W such that P is significantly free in W and P does only what is right in W, there is an action A and a maximal world segment such that

  1. includes A's being morally significant for P
  2. includes P's being free with respect to A
  3. is included in W and includes neither P's performing A nor P's refraining from performing A
  4. If were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.

Whether or not it is applied to the Christian god, this definition makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone please explain what transworld depravity is?

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Riddle me this

Since nobody qualified has yet answered this, I don’t feel too bad about throwing out some wild amateur speculation and more usefully, a link.

Trans-world depravity certainly sounds tempting. However, the argument involves rather dubious and woolly concepts like God, good, evil and free will; so it is difficult not to be reminded of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Accordingly, it is hard to find the motivation to solve it.

More significantly, it seems to involve what is possibly modal logic; which I don’t really understand.

 

http://hubpages.com/hub/Evil-and-Omnipotence--The-Problem-of-Evil

at least gives a layperson's description of the riddle, as follows:

Here is a rough sketch of Plantinga's argument for trans-world depravity:

Suppose I face a significant moral choice, and I can choose to do X (good) or choose to do Y (evil). Given certain conditions, I will always choose X. If I choose X under certain conditions, God can actualize a world with the same conditions that doesn't include the action of me making that choice (which Plantinga refers to as a 'maximal world segment'), but can't compel me to choose Y without compromising my free will.

This seems to be true, because for any world which God could actualize that included a maximal world segment but didn't include my moral choice, there always exists a possible world in which I will do wrong, and thus I will do wrong on at least one occasion (or at least the possibility exists, one that God cannot prevent without compromising my free will). Thus, it certainly seems possible that a world with free will and no evil could exist, but only we, insofar as we are significantly free creatures, and not God, can actualize such a world If God were to actualize such a world, the God would be compromising our free will. Therefore, even though God is omnipotent, God cannot actualize such a world, should God maintain that free will is a good such that it is imperative to have it.

 

Also see J. L. Mackie, whose beef with it seemed to be that the TWD argument makes the false assumption that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive.

That sounds good to me.

So, for a start, I would dispute the validity of:

Suppose I face a significant moral choice, and I can choose to do X (good) or choose to do Y (evil).

and

 includes P's being free with respect to A

 

So, without absolute free will, the argument makes no sense. 

Anyway, that's my stab at it.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The section on transworld

The section on transworld depravity seems like nothing more than a naked assertion to me.

wiki wrote:
If S' were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.

Why? Why would P go wrong?

wiki wrote:
As Mackie asked: "Why could [God] not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?"

I would make this same argument, as I have in the past. I do not think the theist has a good answer. However, I wouldn't make this from a compatabilist perspective. Rather, I'm just testing the internal consistency of their argument.

From my experiences, depending on how free will is defined, I either think it doesn't exist, isn't meaningful, or trivial. Everything about us is the result of what we physically are. A philosophical zombie that is physically the same as a human, but has no free will just means that free will is nothing.

wiki wrote:
Another issue with Plantinga's defence is that it does not address the problem of natural evil, since natural evil is not brought about by the free choices of creatures. Plantinga's reply is a suggestion that it is at least logically possible that perhaps free, nonhuman persons are responsible for natural evils (e.g. rebellious spirits or fallen angels).[23]

Well, for me, this little tidbit destroys pretty much any respect I had for the argument.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:wiki

butterbattle wrote:

wiki wrote:
Another issue with Plantinga's defence is that it does not address the problem of natural evil, since natural evil is not brought about by the free choices of creatures. Plantinga's reply is a suggestion that it is at least logically possible that perhaps free, nonhuman persons are responsible for natural evils (e.g. rebellious spirits or fallen angels).[23]

Well, for me, this little tidbit destroys pretty much any respect I had for the argument.

 

Since you quoted Plantinga's response to the criticism, could you please say why you think his reply is invalid?

Like you, I have several objections to Plantinga's defense, but I feel like all of them are completely useless until I can understand transworld depravity. Even without any reference to religion, I am having serious trouble understanding the definition of transworld depravity.

 

x wrote:
If I choose X under certain conditions, God can actualize a world with the same conditions that doesn't include the action of me making that choice

That statement is self-contradictory.

If I choose X under certain conditions, then I would only make a different choice if I were subjected to different conditions...

 

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It relies on modal logic so

It relies on modal logic so is not worth taking seriously.

Modal logic is an extremely contrived concept which maps very poorly to any real issues, and is all but impossible to make sense of, so only makes things less clear than 'ordinary' logic, even if it would take more words to express the same ideas.

Modal logic uses very unintuitive concepts, like making a distinction between 'possible' and 'necessary' where something 'necessary' is excluded from the category addressed by the label 'possible', in contradiction to normal usage. Not only does this greatly increase the difficulty of rigorously applying this 'logic', it is totally 'unnecessary', if the aim is to design a system of logic to make it easier to address concepts not easily mapped into the binary true/false world of simple logic, which is the most obvious reason for extending logic.

The category of concepts that the term 'necessary' would seem to reasonably apply to are quite distinct from what we would apply the idea of 'possible' to. Typically, necessary applies to the conclusions of systems of logic and math, which are 'necessarily' true if the axioms are true.

Whereas 'possible' applies to everything that is not inherently contradictory, including virtually all empirical 'facts' about the Universe.

Modal logic is way too mired in medieval concepts, especially the old idea of 'necessity', which was a favourite in the many Theistic and Theological arguments.

I see modal arguments riddled with category errors, IOW, including in the one proposition elements which really can't meaningfully be related. 

Which is why it continually shows up in these attempts to 'prove' God.

IMHO, the more useful direction to go from binary logic is Bayesian analysis, which explicitly addresses the rigorous treatment of propositions which are not known with 100% certainty.

Platinga is either dishonest or intellectually deluded. He is not worth taking seriously unless you are explicitly studying pathological/deluded mind-sets.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote:x

Whatthedeuce wrote:

x wrote:
If I choose X under certain conditions, God can actualize a world with the same conditions that doesn't include the action of me making that choice

That statement is self-contradictory.

If I choose X under certain conditions, then I would only make a different choice if I were subjected to different conditions...

 

.Not in the conceptual world where we are assumed to have 'free will', which is where these guys are coming from.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
It is saying that in all

It is saying that in all possible worlds, (that is any number of possible worlds that a god could create) that it is the case that than in any given world that evil would occur.

Freedom in modal forms presupposed prior to the creation of these worlds, so it has no grounding. Plantinga however does not care, because he is not positing this as true, per se, but as possibly true, thereby giving an account for evil.

I don't share Bob's sentiment with modal logic does have its uses. We often times use it without realizing it. Smiling

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:It is

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

It is saying that in all possible worlds, (that is any number of possible worlds that a god could create) that it is the case that than in any given world that evil would occur.

Freedom in modal forms presupposed prior to the creation of these worlds, so it has no grounding. Plantinga however does not care, because he is not positing this as true, per se, but as possibly true, thereby giving an account for evil.

I don't share Bob's sentiment with modal logic does have its uses. We often times use it without realizing it. Smiling

Give me one example.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote:Since you

Whatthedeuce wrote:
Since you quoted Plantinga's response to the criticism, could you please say why you think his reply is invalid?

Eh, okay, I sort of misspoke.

His response to natural "evils" is a separate issue from his free will defense. But, nevertheless, his response to natural evils is simply ridiculous. We know why natural disasters happens; it is nothing supernatural. Perhaps he will construct another free will defense for "rebellious spirits" and "fallen angels?"

Whatthedeuce wrote:
Like you, I have several objections to Plantinga's defense, but I feel like all of them are completely useless until I can understand transworld depravity.

Honestly, I don't worry about this kind of stuff very much. I do not think that it's as much of a problem of you understanding it as that it is something that just doesn't make any *ucking sense obfuscated with ambiguous terms and, sometimes, philosophical jargon. I admit that I don't really understand it either, but once I've made that conclusion, I get kind of lazy in trying to figure out exactly how and in what ways it doesn't make sense...

Well, maybe I'll go through this step by step and see if my poor brain can handle it.

wiki wrote:
A person P suffers from transworld depravity if and only if the following holds:

Okay, so transworld depravity is something you "suffer" from. It's a state? The person only suffers from it if all of the following hold.

wiki wrote:
for every world W such that P is significantly free in W and P does only what is right in W, there is an action A and a maximal world segment such that

Okay, the person is "significantly free" (whatever the hell that means) in a world, and the person always does what's right. There is also an action A. There is a maximal world segment S' (what the hell does that mean?).

wiki wrote:
includes A's being morally significant for P

Okay, this maximal world segment has actions that are morally significant for the person.

wiki wrote:
includes P's being free with respect to A

The people are free to perform that action or not.

wiki wrote:
is included in W and includes neither P's performing A nor P's refraining from performing A

Okay, I think this is important. S' is included in W. So, I believe we can think of S' as a subset of W. S' is a part of W. There are A's in S' that morally significant for P's, and the P's have free will. There we go. 

Okay, S' includes neither P's performing A nor P's refraining from performing A.............wtf? Okay, so these people neither perform A nor not perform A?...Um, doesn't that violate the law of excluded middle? I'm confused.

wiki wrote:
If were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.

I can't figure out how this conclusion was reached at all.

Edit: Ah, no wait, this isn't a conclusion. This is also a condition for someone to suffer from transworld depravity. Okay, so the condition is "If S' were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.".................what?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:It is

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
It is saying that in all possible worlds, (that is any number of possible worlds that a god could create) that it is the case that than in any given world that evil would occur.

I still don't get it. Evil could possibly occur in any world that God could create? Why?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

It is saying that in all possible worlds, (that is any number of possible worlds that a god could create) that it is the case that than in any given world that evil would occur.

Freedom in modal forms presupposed prior to the creation of these worlds, so it has no grounding. Plantinga however does not care, because he is not positing this as true, per se, but as possibly true, thereby giving an account for evil.

I don't share Bob's sentiment with modal logic does have its uses. We often times use it without realizing it. Smiling

Give me one example.

"If I were you I would consider modal logic."

This is a modal statement using a counterfactual. I'm not you, but if in world W I was, I would consider modal logic.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I still

butterbattle wrote:

I still don't get it. Evil could possibly occur in any world that God could create? Why?

 

It centers around how Plantinga understands free will-- he suggests that freedom occurs before any possible world is created. If the possibility of freedom exists, then evil is logically compatible with his understanding of his god.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

It is saying that in all possible worlds, (that is any number of possible worlds that a god could create) that it is the case that than in any given world that evil would occur.

Freedom in modal forms presupposed prior to the creation of these worlds, so it has no grounding. Plantinga however does not care, because he is not positing this as true, per se, but as possibly true, thereby giving an account for evil.

I don't share Bob's sentiment with modal logic does have its uses. We often times use it without realizing it. Smiling

Give me one example.

"If I were you I would consider modal logic."

This is a modal statement using a counterfactual. I'm not you, but if in world W I was, I would consider modal logic.

 

Ah, your tag line makes so much more sense now.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I still don't get it. Evil could possibly occur in any world that God could create? Why?

 

It centers around how Plantinga understands free will-- he suggests that freedom occurs before any possible world is created. If the possibility of freedom exists, then evil is logically compatible with his understanding of his god.

'Freedom' is not something that 'occurs'. It is a condition experienced by a agent with intentionality. It may or may not exist in any given world, dependent on the way that world is configured.

'Free will' is a separate concept, unless you actually meant by the term 'freedom', 'freedom of will'. The only meaningful interpretation of 'free will' is that an agent has more than one option available to them to choose between, and is not constrained in their choice by external conditions or other agents.  Again, this is a state which can only be defined by the particular configuration of the given 'world'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:wiki

butterbattle wrote:

wiki wrote:
If were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.

I can't figure out how this conclusion was reached at all.

Edit: Ah, no wait, this isn't a conclusion. This is also a condition for someone to suffer from transworld depravity. Okay, so the condition is "If S' were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.".................what?

Does the condition:

If S' were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A

mean 

If the maximal segment (ie a state of affairs prior to the action) existed, then P would choose evil?

 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:wiki

butterbattle wrote:

wiki wrote:
is included in W and includes neither P's performing A nor P's refraining from performing A

Okay, I think this is important. S' is included in W. So, I believe we can think of S' as a subset of W. S' is a part of W. There are A's in S' that morally significant for P's, and the P's have free will. There we go. 

Okay, S' includes neither P's performing A nor P's refraining from performing A.............wtf? Okay, so these people neither perform A nor not perform A?...Um, doesn't that violate the law of excluded middle? I'm confused.

Does this mean:

for the state of affairs S', P has yet to choose good or evil?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

It is saying that in all possible worlds, (that is any number of possible worlds that a god could create) that it is the case that than in any given world that evil would occur.

Freedom in modal forms presupposed prior to the creation of these worlds, so it has no grounding. Plantinga however does not care, because he is not positing this as true, per se, but as possibly true, thereby giving an account for evil.

I don't share Bob's sentiment with modal logic does have its uses. We often times use it without realizing it. Smiling

Give me one example.

"If I were you I would consider modal logic."

This is a modal statement using a counterfactual. I'm not you, but if in world W I was, I would consider modal logic.

Logically, that is not a clearly defined statement, ie it is a poor example to give as an example of a logic of any kind.

"If I was/were you" begs questions of identity and what defines "me" as distinct from "you", so is not really treatable in any strictly logical framework as phrased. All you are clearly saying is that you 'consider' modal logic, which is a simple assertion of a 'fact'.

Informally, such a statement is a suggestion or recommendation from you that someone in my position should 'consider modal logic'.

So far, your statements imply that virtually anything can be understood in 'modal' terms, which is arguably true, and can therefore be analysed via modal logic.

However, unless I specifically employ modal logic concepts such as possibility and necessity in analysing something, it is empty and meaningless to say I am using it.

You are a long way from justifying my 'consideration' of modal logic with that feeble example, sorry.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:'Freedom'

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Freedom' is not something that 'occurs'. It is a condition experienced by a agent with intentionality. It may or may not exist in any given world, dependent on the way that world is configured.

'Free will' is a separate concept, unless you actually meant by the term 'freedom', 'freedom of will'. The only meaningful interpretation of 'free will' is that an agent has more than one option available to them to choose between, and is not constrained in their choice by external conditions or other agents.  Again, this is a state which can only be defined by the particular configuration of the given 'world'.

Freedom is, at minimum, given action A the will to refrain from action A, which I think is what Plantinga is is getting at. There are other flavors of this.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Logically,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Logically, that is not a clearly defined statement, ie it is a poor example to give as an example of a logic of any kind.

What is so hard about it? It is a simple syllogism.

BobSpence1 wrote:

"If I was/were you" begs questions of identity and what defines "me" as distinct from "you", so is not really treatable in any strictly logical framework as phrased. All you are clearly saying is that you 'consider' modal logic, which is a simple assertion of a 'fact'.

This is a red herring as it is addressing soundness, not validity. And if you wish to get muddled down in this sort of discussion as to "what defines 'me' as distinct from 'you'", I suppose I could kill anything with the death of a thousand qualifications.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Informally, such a statement is a suggestion or recommendation from you that someone in my position should 'consider modal logic'.

So far, your statements imply that virtually anything can be understood in 'modal' terms, which is arguably true, and can therefore be analysed via modal logic.

However, unless I specifically employ modal logic concepts such as possibility and necessity in analysing something, it is empty and meaningless to say I am using it.

You are a long way from justifying my 'consideration' of modal logic with that feeble example, sorry.

So unless I formally use logic, I'm not actually employing it? From what I can tell, that's were you're going with this. I think that's disingenuous.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


sinewaav...
sinewaav...'s picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
transworld

depravity= p/w*nth

transworld...


sinewaav...
sinewaav...'s picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
b13

transworld=b13

a binary star system

birthplace of broken symmetry


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Logically, that is not a clearly defined statement, ie it is a poor example to give as an example of a logic of any kind.

What is so hard about it? It is a simple syllogism.

It is not hard to understand as an informal statement, as I paraphrased.

It is simply not precise enough to serve as an example of a domain of logic, especially one like modal logic.

It is not even a good example of a syllogism, either. It only contains one explicit premise, followed by a conclusion from that premise taken together with an assumed premise that our world-views are part of our identity, or something to that effect.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"If I was/were you" begs questions of identity and what defines "me" as distinct from "you", so is not really treatable in any strictly logical framework as phrased. All you are clearly saying is that you 'consider' modal logic, which is a simple assertion of a 'fact'.

This is a red herring as it is addressing soundness, not validity. And if you wish to get muddled down in this sort of discussion as to "what defines 'me' as distinct from 'you'", I suppose I could kill anything with the death of a thousand qualifications.

It fails on both accounts because of the imprecision of the language used.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Informally, such a statement is a suggestion or recommendation from you that someone in my position should 'consider modal logic'.

So far, your statements imply that virtually anything can be understood in 'modal' terms, which is arguably true, and can therefore be analysed via modal logic.

However, unless I specifically employ modal logic concepts such as possibility and necessity in analysing something, it is empty and meaningless to say I am using it.

You are a long way from justifying my 'consideration' of modal logic with that feeble example, sorry.

So unless I formally use logic, I'm not actually employing it? From what I can tell, that's were you're going with this. I think that's disingenuous.

If you want to assert that a given statement is using a specific form of logic beyond the basics, you need to make a logical case for it. All valid propositions of logic can be expressed in terms of simpler logic, and there are many ways to analyse ordinary conversation in terms of 'higher' logics.

Otherwise all you can say is that we do employ logic in normal discourse, which is virtually a truism.

If you actually want to seriously discuss logic, you need to tighten up your thinking a lot.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It is not

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is not hard to understand as an informal statement, as I paraphrased.

It is simply not precise enough to serve as an example of a domain of logic, especially one like modal logic.

It is not even a good example of a syllogism, either. It only contains one explicit premise, followed by a conclusion from that premise taken together with an assumed premise that our world-views are part of our identity, or something to that effect.

I personally do not have a problem with it. I'm sorry if it is not precise enough for you, but that is hardly a refutation. It sounds more to me like a complaint or a preference.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It fails on both accounts because of the imprecision of the language used.

This is yet another red herring.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Otherwise all you can say is that we do employ logic in normal discourse, which is virtually a truism.

Then you're conceding the point, that we use modal logic when we don't realize it. I don't even need an example if this is the case.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It relies

BobSpence1 wrote:

It relies on modal logic so is not worth taking seriously.

 

I can see where you are coming from with this statement; however, in  my opinion the fact that there are a lot of other people who take him seriously is enough justification for me to take him seriously regardless of whatever his methods are.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Platinga is either dishonest or intellectually deluded. He is not worth taking seriously unless you are explicitly studying pathological/deluded mind-sets.

Many people on this site frequently take dishonest and intellectually deluded people seriously. For example, there is an entire page about Kent Hovind which has a link at the top left of the screen no matter where you are within the RRS website.

 

X wrote:
there always exists a possible world in which I will do wrong, and thus I will do wrong on at least one occasion

Isn't this a non-sequitor? Possible is not the same as necessary.

 

@sinewaav...

I hope you can understand that your current posts are completely unhelpful in any way. Are you even talking about the same topic as I am? If you are, could you please explain things more clearly?

 

 

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is not hard to understand as an informal statement, as I paraphrased.

It is simply not precise enough to serve as an example of a domain of logic, especially one like modal logic.

It is not even a good example of a syllogism, either. It only contains one explicit premise, followed by a conclusion from that premise taken together with an assumed premise that our world-views are part of our identity, or something to that effect.

I personally do not have a problem with it. I'm sorry if it is not precise enough for you, but that is hardly a refutation. It sounds more to me like a complaint or a preference.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It fails on both accounts because of the imprecision of the language used.

This is yet another red herring.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Otherwise all you can say is that we do employ logic in normal discourse, which is virtually a truism.

Then you're conceding the point, that we use modal logic when we don't realize it. I don't even need an example if this is the case.

No we don't. Modal logic is just one, somewhat contrived, attempt to formalize certain applications of basic logic.

In ordinary but adequately coherent reasoning, when not consciously applying any formal logic, we are simply reasoning in a way consistent with, describable in the language of, logical concepts.

When you get to the point of asserting that 'necessary' is not a subset of 'possible', within this context, I call bullshit. That is a recipe for confusion, not clarification.

All irrelevant to this thread, where we were addressing a particular argument framed in terms requiring a certain amount of care to disentangle, rather different to the ordinary process of reasoning just referred to.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce

Whatthedeuce wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It relies on modal logic so is not worth taking seriously.

I can see where you are coming from with this statement; however, in  my opinion the fact that there are a lot of other people who take him seriously is enough justification for me to take him seriously regardless of whatever his methods are.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Platinga is either dishonest or intellectually deluded. He is not worth taking seriously unless you are explicitly studying pathological/deluded mind-sets.

Many people on this site frequently take dishonest and intellectually deluded people seriously. For example, there is an entire page about Kent Hovind which has a link at the top left of the screen no matter where you are within the RRS website.

I agree we should take seriously the fact that they and their arguments are taken seriously by many people, and so should be able to pin down why we find them flawed.

In thinking further about just this point, I have decided I will try to find time to dissect this 'argument' in my own terms.

I was really referring to the intrinsic worth of the arguments themselves, as arguments. I am pretty confident that I can see enough 'warning flags' of logical slippages to not bother personally dissecting them further, but I appreciate that is not an adequate response on the forum, plus there is always a slight chance that they will have more merit than I think.

And of course I was expressing an element of frustration there that such arguments and methodologies are 'taken seriously' by so many.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My assessment so far is that

My assessment so far is that Platinga's argument amounts to the assertion that as long as God can create a world such that:

even though individuals would be created free to make bad choices IF confronted with a situation where at least one of the options open to them would be considered evil, even from their own perspective, THEN:

as long as there were possible sequences of events within that world in which that situation never arose, or was 'actualized', in Platinga's words, THEN God is 'let off the hook' so to speak.

IOW creation of such a world does not necessarily conflict with his 'goodness', because in such a world, even with 'free will', situations in which people are presented with the option to make evil choices are not inevitable.

He would still need to prove that it was not possible to create beings with the capacity to make free choices but without the capacity to knowingly make choices which would be likely to have effects that they themselves would regard as 'evil'. The choices we can make are already limited for all kinds of reasons, so some further such restriction does not conflict with the idea of 'free will'.

So 'transworld depravity' is not a necessary consequence of 'free will'.

So I am not impressed with this devious attempt to distance God from the consequences of his decision to create the world as we find it.

It is not necessary for us to have the capacity to make evil choices for us to have meaningful 'free will', any more than is it necessary for there to be evil in order for the idea of 'good' to be meaningful. That ignores the reality of a spectrum of consequences from neutral to downright evil. And it really is not necessary to consider the extreme case of 'evil' - there is a whole range of consequences that are, on balance, undesirable to a greater or lesser extent, and ones where the results are a mix of good and bad.

It also doesn't address all the evil that does not involve our choices at all, such as natural disasters, or choices whose evil effects we did not anticipate, or could not, but are inherent in the 'design' of the world. IOW, all the stuff that is directly his fault.

If you take his line of argument far enough, that God and his omni-attributes are limited by such logical constraints and so not inherently contradictory, especially when you acknowledge such deeper consequences of logic, you end up in a God who serves no purpose, since the world we find ourselves in is fully determined by what is physically and logically possible, which is fully consistent with a non-Theist world-view. IOW God himself is not necessary.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:When you

BobSpence1 wrote:
When you get to the point of asserting that 'necessary' is not a subset of 'possible', within this context, I call bullshit. That is a recipe for confusion, not clarification.

All irrelevant to this thread, where we were addressing a particular argument framed in terms requiring a certain amount of care to disentangle,

I call bullshit on this thread, but only because someone (you) mentioned "entangle" only for ME to discover none of this wanton, counterintuitive gibberish has anything to quantum physics.

 

As far as the subject matter goes for this thread; quantum physics makes a great deal more sense to me than the so-called "language of logical concepts"

 

I'm weird like that, I suppose.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No we

BobSpence1 wrote:

No we don't. Modal logic is just one, somewhat contrived, attempt to formalize certain applications of basic logic.

In ordinary but adequately coherent reasoning, when not consciously applying any formal logic, we are simply reasoning in a way consistent with, describable in the language of, logical concepts.

I suppose I could call this "bullshit" too. Separating logic as something categorical distinct from something you define as "reasoning in a way consistent with, describable in the language of, logical concept" is equivocating.

BobSpence1 wrote:

When you get to the point of asserting that 'necessary' is not a subset of 'possible', within this context, I call bullshit. That is a recipe for confusion, not clarification.

All irrelevant to this thread, where we were addressing a particular argument framed in terms requiring a certain amount of care to disentangle, rather different to the ordinary process of reasoning just referred to.

Modal logic is completely relevant as Plantinga is invoking it. Your dismissal of Plantinga's argument had nothing to do with the argument per se, but the validity form of logic Plantinga invokes.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It also

BobSpence1 wrote:

It also doesn't address all the evil that does not involve our choices at all, such as natural disasters, or choices whose evil effects we did not anticipate, or could not, but are inherent in the 'design' of the world. IOW, all the stuff that is directly his fault.

Good point about evil results of our actions which we cannot anticipate.

 

I think it does account for natural disasters. From this argument, it is logically conceivable that natural disasters could be caused by "angels or spirits" which have free will.

I also don't understand why god has to allow any evil effects of our actions even if he is powerless to prevent the evel causes. For example, if an evil person decides to torture an innocent baby in fire, it might be logically consistent that god is unable to stop the person from making the decision to do so. However, I see no reason why an omnipotent god would be incapable of suspending the baby's notion of pain. In this scenario, the evil person's free will is not compromised, and the baby is not harmed.

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote:I think

Whatthedeuce wrote:
I think it does account for natural disasters. From this argument, it is logically conceivable that natural disasters could be caused by "angels or spirits" which have free will.

Well, yes, it's logically conceivable, but you don't really think that makes it a good defense, do you?

Whatthedeuce wrote:
I also don't understand why god has to allow any evil effects of our actions even if he is powerless to prevent the evel causes. For example, if an evil person decides to torture an innocent baby in fire, it might be logically consistent that god is unable to stop the person from making the decision to do so. However, I see no reason why an omnipotent god would be incapable of suspending the baby's notion of pain. In this scenario, the evil person's free will is not compromised, and the baby is not harmed.

Psh, why doesn't God just put out the fire? Change the course of events so that the evil person never gets his hands on the baby in the first place? Have someone stop him before he tortures the baby? How does that affect the person's free will? Not only can he not stop the person from making the decision to torture the baby, he can't even stop the person from having the ability to do so?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Well,

butterbattle wrote:

 

Well, yes, it's logically conceivable, but you don't really think that makes it a good defense, do you?

 

yes, I do think that makes it a good defense.

 

edit: I mean, it is a good defense with regards to the causes of natural disasters. However, the other objections to Plantinga's defense still stand.

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No we don't. Modal logic is just one, somewhat contrived, attempt to formalize certain applications of basic logic.

In ordinary but adequately coherent reasoning, when not consciously applying any formal logic, we are simply reasoning in a way consistent with, describable in the language of, logical concepts.

I suppose I could call this "bullshit" too. Separating logic as something categorical distinct from something you define as "reasoning in a way consistent with, describable in the language of, logical concept" is equivocating.

BobSpence1 wrote:

When you get to the point of asserting that 'necessary' is not a subset of 'possible', within this context, I call bullshit. That is a recipe for confusion, not clarification.

All irrelevant to this thread, where we were addressing a particular argument framed in terms requiring a certain amount of care to disentangle, rather different to the ordinary process of reasoning just referred to.

Modal logic is completely relevant as Plantinga is invoking it. Your dismissal of Plantinga's argument had nothing to do with the argument per se, but the validity form of logic Plantinga invokes.

I did criticise the logic he employed, but I followed up by expressing his argument more conventional logical terms, so as to more unambiguously point out its flaws.

Modal logic is not necessary to phrase his argument, at most it may be more compact, but 'modal' logic cannot conflict with basic logic, or it would be invalid. Modal logic makes it easier to confuse the issue, by the way it uses the concepts of necessity and possibility. The further we get away from basic logic, the more possibilities for unnoticed errors to slip in especially when imperfectly defined concepts are involved, like God and infinity. These difficulties are why we see significant disagreements about the validity and applicability of the various approaches to enhancing and extending logic.

Mathematics, which is also a deductive system, largely avoids these problems by restricting itself to discussing the relationships between elemental precisely defined 'entities' such as number, shape, ratio, length, area, angle, etc.

Like Metaphysics, any attempt to apply a purely deductive, ie non-empirical, non-inductive, approach to understanding reality, is doomed to get terminally lost in un-resolvable complexities.

Even Math has run into this, and many have resorted to a more empirical approach, employing computers to experimentally explore the consequences and implications of various equations and propositions, and abandon the hope of being able to have everything comprehensively defined and proved.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Modal logic

BobSpence1 wrote:

Modal logic is not necessary to phrase his argument, at most it may be more compact, but 'modal' logic cannot conflict with basic logic, or it would be invalid. Modal logic makes it easier to confuse the issue, by the way it uses the concepts of necessity and possibility. The further we get away from basic logic, the more possibilities for unnoticed errors to slip in especially when imperfectly defined concepts are involved, like God and infinity. These difficulties are why we see significant disagreements about the validity and applicability of the various approaches to enhancing and extending logic.

I don't know that it is possible for Plantinga to frame it without modal logic. His prior commitment to Molinism requires modal logic to even get off the ground. Freedom as he understands it is defined according to possible world scenarios, so unless he gets this, then his whole argument collapses. I think the critical flaw for him is his reliance on Molinism and how he grounds freedom.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Like Metaphysics, any attempt to apply a purely deductive, ie non-empirical, non-inductive, approach to understanding reality, is doomed to get terminally lost in un-resolvable complexities.

Even Math has run into this, and many have resorted to a more empirical approach, employing computers to experimentally explore the consequences and implications of various equations and propositions, and abandon the hope of being able to have everything comprehensively defined and proved.

Because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done. If what you are saying is true, then most certainly everything is doomed to uncertainty...even my statements and yours.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Modal logic is not necessary to phrase his argument, at most it may be more compact, but 'modal' logic cannot conflict with basic logic, or it would be invalid. Modal logic makes it easier to confuse the issue, by the way it uses the concepts of necessity and possibility. The further we get away from basic logic, the more possibilities for unnoticed errors to slip in especially when imperfectly defined concepts are involved, like God and infinity. These difficulties are why we see significant disagreements about the validity and applicability of the various approaches to enhancing and extending logic.

I don't know that it is possible for Plantinga to frame it without modal logic. His prior commitment to Molinism requires modal logic to even get off the ground. Freedom as he understands it is defined according to possible world scenarios, so unless he gets this, then his whole argument collapses. I think the critical flaw for him is his reliance on Molinism and how he grounds freedom.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Like Metaphysics, any attempt to apply a purely deductive, ie non-empirical, non-inductive, approach to understanding reality, is doomed to get terminally lost in un-resolvable complexities.

Even Math has run into this, and many have resorted to a more empirical approach, employing computers to experimentally explore the consequences and implications of various equations and propositions, and abandon the hope of being able to have everything comprehensively defined and proved.

Because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done. If what you are saying is true, then most certainly everything is doomed to uncertainty...even my statements and yours.

I am quite certain that everything is ultimately uncertain.... 

Maybe not everything - I accept cogito ergo sum as being as close to certain for me as anything can be, but beyond that the fuzziness grows...

The important thing to recognize is that there are degrees of uncertainty, and 'uncertain' does not equate to useless, or imply something which cannot contribute to enhancing our confidence in some empirical/inductive proposition. See Bayes Theorem.

Logic, ie the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction, pretty damn close to necessary starting points... (in case you notice anything, the Law of Excluded Middle I regard as problematic: either entailed by the first two, or only applicable to the particular case of Binary Logic,) .

You might be interested in this discussion: http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article020103.html, very relevant to points raised here. It is titled "A Dialogue on Mathematics and Physics [with] Cristian S. Calude and Gregory J. Chaitin".

And no, if a proposition expressed in modal logic cannot be expressed in non-modal logic, it implies the fundamental propositions of modal logic are invalid.

If the basis of modal logic can be defined in terms of more fundamental logic, then any valid argument employing them can be expanded into terms employing simpler concepts. If they can't, they cannot be given the same status as fundamental logic, meaning they have 'slipped in' an unsupported assertion, an additional 'axiom', or it rather strongly suggests they are invalid. It does mean that any such additional axiom has to be made explicit. Any extension of logic or math requires additional axioms or rules to be defined, which have to be expressed or defined using more fundamental logic terms.

Platinga's commitment to Molinism means that he shares the same dedication to coming up with a plausible logical justification for his a priori commitment to Christian Theism, just as was Luis de Molina himself, and so has a strong incentive, not necessarily conscious, to skate over strict logical thoroughness and consistency.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I am quite

BobSpence1 wrote:
I am quite certain that everything is ultimately uncertain.... 

Maybe not everything - I accept cogito ergo sum as being as close to certain for me as anything can be, but beyond that the fuzziness grows...

Decartes was on to something there.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The important thing to recognize is that there are degrees of uncertainty, and 'uncertain' does not equate to useless, or imply something which cannot contribute to enhancing our confidence in some empirical/inductive proposition. See Bayes Theorem.

Logic, ie the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction, pretty damn close to necessary starting points... (in case you notice anything, the Law of Excluded Middle I regard as problematic: either entailed by the first two, or only applicable to the particular case of Binary Logic,) .

You might be interested in this discussion: http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article020103.html, very relevant to points raised here. It is titled "A Dialogue on Mathematics and Physics [with] Cristian S. Calude and Gregory J. Chaitin".

I agree your statement and the article about the nature of uncertainties. But a priori, I can know uncertainty exists...even with logic. Godel pointed out in his theorms that there is no set of axioms that cannot otherwise be defined by another set of axioms. If this is the case, then what set of axioms do I choose? (this is a rhetorical question, of course).

BobSpence1 wrote:

And no, if a proposition expressed in modal logic cannot be expressed in non-modal logic, it implies the fundamental propositions of modal logic are invalid.

If the Logic expresses modalities, then how can it be non-modal? Even if it is expressed in forms that are non-modal forms (semantically speaking) it is nevertheless modal logic.

BobSpence1 wrote:

If the basis of modal logic can be defined in terms of more fundamental logic, then any valid argument employing them can be expanded into terms employing simpler concepts. If they can't, they cannot be given the same status as fundamental logic, meaning they have 'slipped in' an unsupported assertion, an additional 'axiom', or it rather strongly suggests they are invalid. It does mean that any such additional axiom has to be made explicit. Any extension of logic or math requires additional axioms or rules to be defined, which have to be expressed or defined using more fundamental logic terms.

Why should I believe that? If Godel is right, then all I have to do is express your axioms in terms of my axioms to show that either one will work. At some point, you end of question begging or just accepting that axioms just "are".

BobSpence1 wrote:

Platinga's commitment to Molinism means that he shares the same dedication to coming up with a plausible logical justification for his a priori commitment to Christian Theism, just as was Luis de Molina himself, and so has a strong incentive, not necessarily conscious, to skate over strict logical thoroughness and consistency.

Molina didn't formulate his writings on modal logic per se, but his work and others got the ball rolling, and only recently has modal logic really be formalized. He was caught in the middle of the theological battles of his day, and was looking for some middle ground, so he conjectured middle knowledge as a compatibilist approach to between determinism and free will. Plantinga is extending Molinist ideas into the problem of evil debate by caching out the classic free will defense in modal terms in accordance with Molinism.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”