This is my first ever re-blog (seriously!). Bear with me guys. The original appears underneath my comments. I am assured by my tech-savvy daughter that that’s just the way it has to be.
Yup, sadly all too true. And philosophy attracts more than its fair share of arseholes who think if they throw a few bits of philosophical jargon into a post then they will appear intelligent. Take this example of priceless fuck-wittery :
“Thanks. No, I think it’s acceptable. So we both agree the antecedent is necessarily false. But we don’t want to say it’s trivially true. So we need a semantics broader than possible worlds semantics. So we use something like impossible worlds semantics. We then go to the “closest” impossible world at which the antecedent is true, and my argument is that at that world atheists couldn’t raise a POE charge against God for “aborting” us because God can just use a bodily autonomy justification. The atheist will (intuitively) want to think the undefeated POE world is closer.
Another example. Plantinga argues against identity theories where brain state = mental content. He then asks us to remove the content and replace it with another but leave same brain states. Both he and the identity theorist will think this is impossible (violating identity). He claims the closer impossible world is the one where the person does the same action, so he thinks epiphenomenalism follows. Here, again, both sides agree the antecedent of the counterpossible is impossible.”