Could modal realism be the answer to the problem of evil?



>God is omnipotent meaning he can do anything that is logically possible

>It is not logically possible to eliminate a possibility. Even if you can choose A, you cannot eradicate the possibility of B

>If David Lewis is correct then all possible worlds are actual worlds

>Inevitably there will be worlds that are full of evil and suffering

>In that case god cannot help us, even if he is omnipotent, all-knowing and all-loving

>>21975235 (OP)

Modal realism provides a prima facie argument against God. But whatever man.

I wouldn't say it outright refutes him. It only provides an objection to cosmological arguments. But even these are not that strong, If god doesn't exist then the creation of the universe may not have been logically possible, so no universe would exist

>>21975235 (OP)

>If David Lewis is correct then all possible worlds are actual worlds

Then all possible worlds are concrete. Only one possible world is actual, it's this one, here.

>Inevitably there will be worlds that are full of evil and suffering

Yes, they're possibilities.

>In that case god cannot help us, even if he is omnipotent, all-knowing and all-loving

Yeah he's OOO, but his omnipotence is irrelevant in the same way that it is ultimately irrelevant to the paradox of the stone.



Just quickly because I need to sleep:

Suppose God exists

If God exists he is necessary *and* OOO.

God is necessary iff he exists at all possible worlds.

Some possible worlds are full of evil.

So possibly God exists in worlds full of evil.

So the existence of God cannot necessarily preclude the existence of evil.

So possibly God is not OOO.

So possibly God does not exist.



Insisting God exists necessarily but is contingently OOO will land you something that is in most worlds casually inefficacious, and arguably not even something we'd call God, since it doesn't fit the bill of ooo in most cases. Just call it another word.



It's possible that there are worlds in which god is ooo, but it's only a subset of the worlds, and we aren't there. Besides that, to reiterate the initial argument's point. That god isn't necessary.



>If god doesn't exist then the creation of the universe may not have been logically possible, so no universe would exist. 

Let's take the contrapositive: if the creation of the universe were logically possible, then God would exist.

But the laws of logic are necessary. The laws of logic are just classical quantified predicate logic. There's nothing about God's existence in the logic. And we've established that God is not necessary. So there are worlds (universes, why not) that exist without God.



Goodnight and sorry for any typos.

>>21975235 (OP)

wouldn't there also be a possible world where god doesn't exist?

No, because if god doesn't exist, it might be logically impossible for the world itself to exist

>uuuuh these words written on a blackboard in santa fe totally solved the problem of evil bro

retard

That doesn't make sense.
