It is inherent in our truth tables that we configure a statement to be either true or false, but it seems that this might have certain exceptions, especially in conditionals.

For example, the commonly held tradition when faced with a conditional in which the antecedent never occurs or is 'false' is to hold that the conditional is automatically 'true'. So for example, if we have a conditional in which we say 'If it rains tomorrow (p), I will go for a jog (q).' In the event of the nonoccurrence of it raining tomorrow (p), then the entire conditional is considered true.

But it seems that from a certain view such a conditional would neither be true nor false. This appears to be the case in that the truth or falsity of a statement can only be determined by analysis of its whole meaning, but since the antecedent never occurs, it couldn't be said whether such a conditional, taken as a whole, is true or not.

This is because the consequent depends on the antecedent for its truth-value, in that the consequent of jogging is meaningful and relevant only insofar as a precondition is met in the antecedent that it rains tomorrow. Thus, if it doesn't rain tomorrow, the very truth-value and relevance of the consequent seems to be drastically diminished. As such, the whole of the statement is no longer determined and seems to rather be cast into a 'neutral' or undetermined relation to truth.

So, two questions:

1. How does one reconcile Being and Becoming (Poetic got me to thinking about that in another thread)?

2. Does the Kantian Metaphysical paradigm " all events must have a cause" fit into the category of something beyond reason and logic?