[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

This doesn't make any sense with what I was quoting? Or maybe I'm just missing it?

Could be either of us.

It's logically possible that slavery wasn't abolished, sure.

Meaning what? It's not internally inconsistent: like "it's logically possible that this is the year 1512AD, I'm Socrates, and we are on Jupiter"

I don't call that "possible", I call that "consistent". It seems like you are equivocating, as I don't believe "is internally consistent" is the meaning of "possible" in the "necessary being" argument.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This seemed a rehash of the "necessary being" which is based on the false supposition that unreal situations have bearing on real situations.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I don't understand? Are you basically saying, you think modal logic is wrong?

Who's "proving God"?

It seems to me that you are asserting that modal logic proves God.

Of course, again, in many modal logics counterfactual statements and statements of the future are equivalent.

I don't see that modal logic deals with definitely false facts any different than non-modal logic. It seems interested in conditional conclusions ("If there is no God then I will...")

Maybe in a really special deterministic world in which the past follows from the future, not just the future from the past. Either way, that's pretty astoundingly speculative.

I disagree very strongly. I don't see it possible that the universe is anything other than deterministic or a combination of deterministic and "random". There is simply no other consistent description.

Again, I don't see a "God proof" as this thread's subject. Now, if you're talking about Plantinga's ontological argument, seriously, if you don't understand modal logic then you're not Plantinga's audience so of course it's not going to make sense to you.

It would be "the absolute God" portion; and recall this is a spinoff from a thread where someone asserted that a reality without God was impossible as God was a necessary being.