I am wondering how much of the semantic of basic philosophical questions can be expressed by formal arguments in modal logic. Here is one argument I formalised myself:
P1 ◇ ∀a, ∃x // GNB(x, a) ∧ C(a) ≡ S(x)
P2 ◻ ∀b, ∃y // GNB(y, b) ∧ A(b) ≡ F(S(y))
C ◇ ∀c // A(c) ≡ F(C(c))
The original argument, in ordinary language, proved very difficult to understand for most people I have tested with it.
Is it possible to prove the validity of such an argument in a formal way, given its apparent complexity for most people? How complex proven arguments can be? Could you give a representative example of a complex argument?