Obviously the problem cannot be expressed in formal logic, because the nature of the problem is that it renders the formal logic as fundamentally unsound. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl:

If your argument cannot be expressed clearly, then the obvious implication is that it is unsound. Again, S4 and S5 and derivatives have been shown to be complete and consistent. You appear to be simply wrong here.

The demonstration is like this. If the world is describable as state A, and then it becomes state B, we can conclude that change occurred between A and B, We could then assume a state C as the intermediary between A and B and describe the change as state C, but this would imply that change occurred between A and C, and also between C and B. We could posit state D between A and C, and state E between C and B, but we would still have the same problem again. As you can see, this indicates an infinite regress, and we never get to the point of understanding what change, activity, or motion, really is. Activity, change, motion, is what occurs between states of affairs, when one becomes the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol: Have you thought of going in to writing the jokes for Christmas crackers?

I agree that a State of Affairs can only capture one moment in time, — RussellA

maybe take care here, too. Why shouldn't. state of affairs list the positions some object occupies over time? As, 'The ball rolled east at 2m/s'?

Meta would have to disagree with this, because he can't make sense of instantaneous velocity, or of calculus or any sort of limit or infinitesimal in general. See the Christmas Cracker above, where Meta treats change as a series of static instances rather than as dynamic, and as a result discovers that motion is impossible. :wink:

Change cannot be reduced to a sequence of instantaneous states - but no one is claiming that.

All this by way of mostly agreeing with you. Including the suspicion that Plantinga is misled by his faith. — Banno

From what I've seen, it does seem very likely that Plantinga thinks that there is a connection between his philosophy and his faith. But I'm pretty sure that there are Christians who accept his faith but not his philosophy, I suspect it is not really the faith that is misleading him, but good old-fashioned philosophical mistakes.

It may be. However the penchant for a modal ontological argument gives me pause.