Brayarb

Yes, as long as X existing is contingent, then x existing ultimately obtained by chance.

If God wanting X contingently obtained, then yes, he could've not wanted X. So, yes, there are two possible outcomes. Contingency entails at least two...

Again, I'm not talking about impotence. When I say fail, I'm not saying that God is trying to do something and failing. I'm merely saying that if God ...

That's true, but God's wanting X would be contingent, if it could fail to obtain. I wasn't implying that God's choice could fail to obtain because he'...

It's just a scenario I was constructing. I'm sure there are some metaphysical necessitarians that wouldn't agree with it.

While that is fine and true, that could still be the case and yet God choosing to create X could've failed to obtain. It contingently obtained, so I w...

I didn't mean to suggest that the origin point in a causal chain has a cause. I'm perfectly happy to work with an uncaused cause. What I'm trying to d...

I'm not opposed to suggestions. Out of curiosity, suppose someone asked you why an initial (or origin, as you put it), contingent state of affairs obt...

I would suspect that there might be some propositions about the state of the actual world that are necessarily true, no? I suspect most theists would ...

Yes, chance would be present in any libertarian free choice. I don't think it misrepresents a free will choice. Libertarian free choices are contingen...

I think we may be employing chance differently here. I'm not really suggesting that chance modifies a cause, as if chance was something doing this or ...

I think that that is just what contingency entails. It seems that if God has a free (in the libertarian sense) choice, then we have something like the...

Yea. The way I put it is that world-X ultimatelyobtained by chance. As I just mentioned to MU, if we trace back to the root, we should arrive at chanc...

Yes, I'd say a choice could necessitate a state of affairs to obtain, but, again, if the state of affairs contingently obtained, then so did the choic...

Well the idea is that if world-X obtained (or was actual in the way that the abstractionist uses the term) contingently, then your making it so would ...

Yea, I've got you. I'm not too knowledgeable in that area either, so we can leave it there. Thanks for your input.

I guess I don't see why one wouldn't say it was just by chance. But that's why I started the thread, because I wasn't sure. Well, the concretist would...

I've got you. I'm not really sure which position I find more convincing. All that being said, the point of the thread was to assume abstractionism, an...

I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. So, when the abstractionist says that w1 obtains but the others don't, what do you take that to mea...

I understand what you're saying, I think. You are saying that if S1 obtains at possible world w1, then a world where S2 obtains instead of S1 is obvio...

I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding your response, I think. It seems like I agree with your post, yet you're denying my contention of ...

The question is not confused, you're just not approaching it from the abstractionist position, which is what I've asked for in the OP. Maybe try this:...

There is a section on abstractionism in the "Possible Worlds" entry on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) website.

Although, as I said, I think contingency entails chance, as I'm using the word, I think I can make a distinction between the two. I employ "chance" wh...

Yea, I think we're on the same page. All my knowledge of this pretty much comes from the SEP Possible Worlds entry as well. After thinking about it an...

Not one abstractionist in this community, huh? Feels like no one is even willing to wear the hat.

As I mentioned in the OP, I'm asking for what the answer would be IF the abstractionists' position was to be correct. I figure that it has to be chanc...