P1: If Richard Swinburne is right then RK is wrong.
P2: Richard Swinburne is right.
C: Therefore RK is wrong.

Of course, the fallacy might be just a bit more evident that way…

P1: If Richard Swinburne is right then RK is wrong.
P2: Richard Swinburne is right.
C: Therefore RK is wrong.

Of course, the fallacy might be just a bit more evident that way…

You said: "The argument in question is not which view of Christian theism is correct, however, but whether or not possible worlds is consistent with Christian theism as RK has understood it"

Yes, I would agree. I had expected that RK would disagree with (9) as I indicated in the post, but I was interested as to the nature of the disagreement. Am I somehow wrong in asking RK to provide a justification for his position that changelessness is a precondition of perfection? I understand that RK and Swinburne come from different theological backgrounds, but surely this can't be where the "buck stops" so to speak.

You said: "I think he is just saying that while this may work in the case of Swinburne's understanding of Christian theism (which is wrong)"

Out of curiosity, if Swinburne were to lay the charge on you that your position is incorrect, how might you two go about resolving the dispute?

You said: "In order to touch RK's argument, you either need to present an argument that Swinburne's understanding on these tenets is the same as that belonging to RK, or argue that RK is objectively wrong about the tenets, or address RK's argument upon his own understanding of the tenets."

I could do these yes, but I thought that a more fruitful discussion might center around the basis for his disagreement with (9). I suppose I could have centered an entire post around that question…

As for your meeting of an atheist who believes in God, it reminded me of this paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstr…

You said: "The argument in question is not which view of Christian theism is correct, however, but whether or not possible worlds is consistent with Christian theism as RK has understood it"

Yes, I would agree. I had expected that RK would disagree with (9) as I indicated in the post, but I was interested as to the nature of the disagreement. Am I somehow wrong in asking RK to provide a justification for his position that changelessness is a precondition of perfection? I understand that RK and Swinburne come from different theological backgrounds, but surely this can't be where the "buck stops" so to speak.

You said: "I think he is just saying that while this may work in the case of Swinburne's understanding of Christian theism (which is wrong)"

Out of curiosity, if Swinburne were to lay the charge on you that your position is incorrect, how might you two go about resolving the dispute?

You said: "In order to touch RK's argument, you either need to present an argument that Swinburne's understanding on these tenets is the same as that belonging to RK, or argue that RK is objectively wrong about the tenets, or address RK's argument upon his own understanding of the tenets."

I could do these yes, but I thought that a more fruitful discussion might center around the basis for his disagreement with (9). I suppose I could have centered an entire post around that question…

As for your meeting of an atheist who believes in God, it reminded me of this paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstr…

I met an atheist yesterday who believed in God by the way.

I met an atheist yesterday who believed in God by the way.

I also don't think that it is a silly discussion. Presumably there are arguments to show that perfection entails changelessness, that is what I'm asking you to provide. Swinburne is absolutely correct in saying that it is in line with neo-Platonist thought, and from my understanding, Reformed Theology attempts to distance itself from Greek philosophy.

Have a happy holidays.