I’m fascinated with the discussion, and perhaps Jared meant that the moment God created this world (that is, at the beginning) there were from then on no other possible worlds, but this is almost tautological I would think… and therefore certainly true.

Maybe this is not quite related, but isn’t there a sense in which this world is the only logically possible one? It seems plausible that this is the only logically possible world given certain premises, biblical ones I think, such as (P1) God necessarily does all things for His glory, (P2) He does all things necessarily perfectly, (P3) God created this world, therefore, (C) the creation of this world is necessary and perfect. I realize that this is not strict syllogistic form and so bear with me on that. Perhaps one could deny the necessity of the premises, but not a Christian who holds to sola Scriptura, right? Maybe I’m way off! I anticipate one may say, “Well there’s no contradiction in thinking that you may have worn a different shirt yesterday, right?” I don’t know. If Christ is the Logos and Wisdom of God and He has eternally thought, “MikeD will wear or wore a Reformed Forum t-shirt on such and such a date,” then isn’t impossible, with respect to the Logos, that MikeD could wear a White Horse Inn t-shirt at that very same time? The more I type the more I know I just really need to read some of the books mentioned, but I really like a comment above that noted we should perhaps begin with a more theological construct and then go to her handmaiden.

Where the rubber meets the road for me is when my 7 year old is asking me why did God decree evil to be in the world, as is the teaching of Scripture. My answer is, often in many other words, that God knows that the way things are (including the evil) to be the plan that glorifies Him most and we shold ultimately praise Him for His wisdom in making it as such. As one of my favorite author’s has said about a very-much-related topic… this teaching is not hard to understand, but hard to believe.

I struggled with whether or not to say any of this but I really do think it needed to be said. Hopefully you won’t be cursing my name for this.

God bless.

PS Thanks to Nate, I came across this video of Wolterstorff giving a great history of Plantinga’s contribution and influence. Particularly relevant to your comment is this section, but the whole lecture is worth watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_jSuFsKgQ.

Patrick,

Thanks for the comments, they’re really helpful, and I sincerely mean that. I did struggle with how to present enormous topics like modal logic, simplicity, immutability, etc. and still maintain the big theological picture, so your approach may have succeeded more in that. And I can see how my interest in Plantinga could be annoying to those who don’t share the same interest, but at the same time I do defend his influence and his philosophical ability as worth discussing, in my humble opinion, even over guys like Kripke. I think Plantinga has developed the topic beyond both Lewis and Kripke (and Putnam and Donnellan), and is at least attempting to do so with Christian theism and (a poor conception of) Reformed theology in the background. Hence the intrigue.

I’m not able to give a full scale defense of use of possible world semantics, but I would do so with a ton of qualifications and certainly don’t see it as remotely mandatory for theology or philosophy. But at this time I’m convinced it has the potential to speak in clear ways when proper theology informs its use. Either way, I’m glad you’re enjoying it. Up next in a couple weeks is Does God Have a Nature and would love any comments on that as well!

Patrick,

Thank you for your thoughts here, I think you make some helpful points. I continue to wrestle (in my mind) with the relation of possible worlds to the doctrine of creation. I think that way of talking certainly provides easy clarity from many angles, and is not intrinsically problematic for theology – possible worlds proves fruitful for K. S. Oliphint in “Reasons for Faith,” for example. I still feel uncomfortable however with where possible worlds often leads us when those categories encroach on the divine act of creation. Those conversations invariably – thus far, anyway – leave us with less than satisfying theological ideas or cute but useless philosophical enigmas (e.g. what is the relative moral value of two worlds that differ only by one neutrino?). One day I hope to get my disagreement into clearer language, but, unfortunately, it’ll have to be clear in my head first.

Thanks for your recommendations too – I’d be very happy to get into Kripke and/or Stalnaker.