Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Possible World Argument from Alexander Pruss' Necessary Existence

**Posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist** 12/14/2018 9:14 am

P(1) In some possible world, the totality of contigent things had a beginning.
P(2) The totality of contigent things, possibly had a cause.
P(3) This cause has to be a necessary entity.
C(4) Therefore, a necessary entity, possibly exists.
P(5) If a necessary entity possibly exists, then a necessary entity exists.
P(6) A necessary entity possibly exists.
C(7) Therefore, a necessary entity exists.

Opinions? Thoughts?

Last edited by ClassicalLiberal.Theist (12/14/2018 11:13 am)

**Posted by John West** 12/14/2018 10:19 am

ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:
Opinions? Thoughts?

Yes, that it's quite suspicious that you keep misspelling "argument" as "arguement". (I would add a pensive chin scratch or detective emoji to lighten the tone of my sentence, if there were such things on here.)

**Posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist** 12/14/2018 11:05 am

John West wrote:
ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:
Opinions? Thoughts?
Yes, that it's quite suspicious that you keep misspelling "argument" as "arguement". (I would add a pensive chin scratch or detective emoji to lighten the tone of my sentence, if there were such things on here.)

Damn, you're right. I wish there was spell check on the forum. My bad.

**Posted by Calhoun** 12/14/2018 11:56 am

Argyement looks pretty strong, I guess critic will try to either endorse some radical modal sceptism ( rejecting modal premises) or reject S5.

**Posted by DanielCC** 12/14/2018 4:22 pm

To me this is similar to the Gale-Pruss cosmological argument albeit with causation instead of the PSR.

My only reservation would be origins essentialism - if each beings has its causal origin of necessity (in all worlds in which is exists it is caused to exist by the same being) then it makes it easier for the critic to dig their heels in and claim that some contingent beings necessarily have their existence as a brute fact.

If I recall correctly Pruss offers an even weaker version of this argument based on counter-parts to get round origins problems (the critic would be forced to take Bede Rundle approach and argue that necessarily there exists a contingent being in every possible world).

**Posted by John West** 12/14/2018 9:21 pm

ClassicalLiberal.Theist wrote:
Damn, you're right. I wish there was spell check on the forum. My bad.

I wasn't going to say anything, but I noticed it in every single post.
I suppose I should add a more serious comment, too, and suggest trying to reformulate the argument without P1. C4 seems to follow from P2 and P3, and C7 from C4 and P5. Perhaps Pruss is trying to block some clever kind of reply he discusses earlier in his book or something, though.