I'm interested. How does this link to Davidson? — Banno
In giving up dependence on the concept of an uninterpreted reality, something outside all schemes and science, we do not relinquish the notion of objective truth -quite the contrary. Given the dogma of a dualism of scheme and reality, we get conceptual relativity, and truth relative to a scheme. Without the dogma, this kind of relativity goes by the board. Of course truth ot sentences remains relative to language, but that is as objective as can be. In giving up the dualism of scheme and world, we do not give up the world, but reestablish unmediated touch with the familiar objects whose antics make our sentences and opinions true or false.
↪Cheshire That's interesting.
So for a theist presumably god is as familiar as that chair over there... and yet not so for others.
Not sure where to go next. My temptation is simply to say the theist is wrong, but that's a bit trite. — Banno
Indeed; so if there is a possible world in which god does not exist, than god did not create everything. — Banno
It's the "Is God subject to the rules of logic" question. — Hanover
Maybe that's what you're getting at, — Hanover
God is supposed to be a necessary being. Something is necessary if it is true in every possible world.
There is a possible world in which god does not exist.
Hence, god is not a necessary being. — Banno
How better to show that it is blather than to drag it out for hundreds of posts? — Banno
Let the believers believe and the nonbelievers not. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.