@de1euzional: Song choice lines up with the Argument 😁#philosophy #logic #theist #atheist #fyp

Ninisontheglass :

Does anyone actually understand this

antitheist ⚛️🌍 :

99% liked this without understanding a single word (I'm one of them)

Farozs Platinga :

1. CD: ∀w ∀x (x ∈ D) (Constant Domain) 2. ∃x φ(x) ≡ ∃x (E!(x) ∧ φ(x)) (Existence as Predicate) 3. ∀x □φ(x) → □∀x φ(x) (Barcan Formula, valid in CD) PRUSS OBJECTION FAILURE 4. ∀x □D(x) (Premise) 5. ∀x □D(x) → □D(a) (UI) 6. □D(a) (From 4,5) 7. □D(a) → ¬◇¬D(a) (Modal axiom) 8. ◇¬D(a) → ¬□D(a) (Dual) 9. Objection requires: ◇¬D(a) 10. From (6): ¬◇¬D(a) 11. Contradiction: ◇¬D(a) ∧ ¬◇¬D(a) 12. Therefore: Objection is question-begging 13. □∃x G(x) (MPA conclusion) 14. Assume contingency: ∃p (◇p ∧ ◇¬p) 15. Then: ¬∀p □p 16. No bridge principle: ¬(□∃x G(x) → ∀p □p) 17. Therefore: □∃x G(x) ∧ ∃p (◇p ∧ ◇¬p) 18. Hence: No modal collapse FINAL CONCLUSION 19. BF valid under CD 20. Objection presupposes VD 21. Framework mismatch → objection irrelevant 22. Modal collapse does not follow 23. Therefore: Critique fails semantically, formally, and metaphysically

alperen🥛 :

Chris :

Formal philosophy is so damn cool but unfortunately a level above me 🫩

🥈 :

Maydole’s Modal Perfection Argument presents a logically sophisticated case that if a maximally perfect being is genuinely possible, then such a being must exist necessarily. The argument does not simply define God into existence, but explores the consequences of metaphysical possibility within modal logic. If omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection are coherent great-making properties, then the concept of a supremely perfect being cannot be dismissed outright as irrational. Necessary existence can also be understood as a higher form of existence, reflecting ultimate independence and non-contingency rather than mere existence itself. Under accepted modal principles such as S5, the possibility of such a being leads logically to its necessary existence. Criticisms often focus on the premises, but unless those premises are shown to be incoherent or impossible, the argument remains a serious philosophical challenge. Rather than serving as unquestionable proof, Maydole’s reasoning demonstrates that belief in God can be supported through rigorous formal logic and remains intellectually credible.

idk :

to create infinite univers, you need infinite energy. god is the reality we live in as he sacrificed himself to bring reality into what we call big bang. god doesnt play a role in time since he is it, we as we choose path through our choice we become god for an instant or an eternity since time really just a flat circle

tungtungaccelerationism2 :

￴ ￴￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ :

Do you believe in God?

isaac :

what do the weird symbols mean

miyuki :

what do u think of maydole’s proof for the first premise? he says that it’s the same as gödel’s proof for the 1st theorem of his ontological argument

MOS :

If something necessarily exists in another possible world then it exists in ours*

Aryan :

imagine using simple words.

♡ :

Георг Ларпель :

Let's criticize the modal ontological argument as formulated by Gödel

Влад :

at the point of arguments like this it becomes word play

Aubrey :

Oh by the way, you forgot to say that Barcan formulates this in incompleteness. 😂

iblamegenetics :

that's what I was about to say

THE Pinkiusthunderdick🇫🇮🇷🇺 :

will :

what i would’ve said

🌐🚩𝓮𝔁𝓹𝓵𝓸𝓼𝓱𝓮𝓻☭ 🏳️‍🌈 :

L :

Brother 😭. Just assume a constant domain and everything is fixed. Same people exist in every world but their properties vary.

Lethargic Nominalist :

W barcan 😂

iLoveSuckingLemons :

This proves or disproves if i exist or not