Until the diverse preachers indoctrinators proselytizers chill out, they should expect others asking them to justify their claims. In case they impose their faiths on others, politics, have their faiths interfere in other peoples' lives, whatever social matters, etc, then they should expect all the more. (Incidentally, Leviticus 20:13 came up recently elsewhere; responses varied.) — jorndoe
(it is circular) — Bartricks
God is not a necessary being. — Bartricks
the law of non-contradiction is contingently true — Bartricks
The actual world.Could there be a possible world which is made of no necessary thing? A world that lacks any necessary thing? — Daniel
As an actualist, I can only refer to a possibilist, or 'possible worlds semanticist' (e.g. Kripke, Lewis ... @Banno(?))Or is it required for a possible world to have at least one necessary thing to be a possible world?
Could there be a possible world in which the quality of "necessary" does not exist (as part of such world)? — Daniel
...each possible world could have a different necessary thing. — Daniel
I did mean to come back to this, even though it will probably, on experience, meet with a mouthful of abuse rather than anything useful. — Banno
No, it's a modus tollens reductio. That god is necessary is inconsistent with that we can specify a possible world without god. It shows we can have a necessary being or we are able to specify a possible world without some given individual, but not both. — Banno
Shooting from the hip here; but do you end up proving the negative as a result. There is now a necessary rule about God's lack of necessity that must be false in one instance. Don't bother reading that twice. Thanks for the response, I'll mull it over.↪Cheshire that's the best way to think about possible worlds... as conjectures. — Banno
Yep:Yes, but only once you start trying to abuse me rather than addressing my arguments, then I will abuse you back and abuse you better. I'm almost certain that'll happen....but let's see, it's entirely up to you. — Bartricks
Do move aside, amateur! — Bartricks
let's crucify your opening argument: — Bartricks
the argument is shit — Bartricks
More squiggles and squoggles. You love your latin and your squoggles, don't you? — Bartricks
Maybe you should learn English 'before' you start squiggling and squoggling. — Bartricks
And I will ignore your reply to this post. Just not interested. — Banno
No, you claimed it's circular. You did not point out a circularity. Now you engage in the rhetorical strategy of claiming to have presented an argument previously, an argument which is not there. YOu've done this on several occasions before, in previous discussions we have had.I explained why it is circular and you have said nothing at all to address my point — Bartricks
As for the law of non contradiction and its contingent status - I do not understand what your problem is. Genuinely. It is true. That is, I think it is true. Not false. True. I just don't think it is necessarily true. I don't even know what it means to say something is 'necessarily' true. I am a sceptic about necessity. — Bartricks
But anyway, I believe the law of non contradiction is true. You think I think it is false, yes? — Bartricks
If it were so, there would be a possible world in which for some proposition A, (A & ~A) however (A & ~A)⊃B; that is, denying the law of non-contradiction leads to every and any proposition being true. — Banno
Show me how I have contradicted myself ' — Bartricks
No, you claimed it's circular. You did not point out a circularity. Now you engage in the rhetorical strategy of claiming to have presented an argument previously, an argument which is not there. YOu've done this on several occasions before, in previous discussions we have had. — Banno
Now for your next line: There is a possible world in which god does not exist. That's no different from saying that God does not exist with necessity. That is, you are not inferring from it that God does not exist with necessity. You are just stating it in other words. To say that God does not exist in a possible world is one and the same as saying that God does not exist with necessity. And that's also your conclusion. Thus your argument is circular. You've said "God does not exist with necessity.....therefore God does not exist with necessity'. — Bartricks
To say that a person exists in all possible worlds 'just is' to say that they exist of necessity. Possible worlds talk is just a way of trying to talk about necessity and contingency. That's what it was designed to do.
So, if you assert that God does not exist in some possible worlds, then all you have done is say "God does not exist of necessity". Yet that is what you are seeking to conclude. So it is really no different from this argument:
1. Fromage exists
2. Fromage means Cheese
3. Therefore Cheese exists
1. God does not exist in some possible worlds
2. If something does not exist in some possible worlds that means it does not exist of necessity
3. Therefore God does not exist of necessity.
True, but just pointless.
To be non-circular you'd need to extract your conclusion - that God does not exist in some possible worlds a.k.a. God does not exist of necessity - from some premises that do not assert it. — Bartricks
Yeah, asserting a contradiction is not a very strong argument, even if you assert it three times — Banno
No, I, along with almost everyone else I have met except you, think is a necessary truth. — Banno
SO if the law of noncontradiction is not necessary, then a contradiction ensues. You assert that the law of noncontradiction is not necessary; hence, you assert a contradiction. You have contradicted yourself. — Banno
Where do I assert a contradiction, Banno? Highlight it. — Bartricks
. You think I think it is false, yes? — Bartricks
But anyway, I believe the law of non contradiction is true. You think I think it is false, yes?
— Bartricks
No, I, along with almost everyone else I have met except you, think it is a necessary truth. Just like 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. And by necessary I mean it is true in every possible world. — Banno
SO if the law of noncontradiction is not necessary, then a contradiction ensues. You assert that the law of noncontradiction is not necessary; hence, you assert a contradiction. You have contradicted yourself. — Banno
Bartricks has contradicted himself if he makes an assertion that implies a contradiction.
Bartricks asserts that the law of noncontradiction is not necessarily true. — Banno
The law of noncontradiction is ~(A & ~A).
If ~(A & ~A) is not necessarily true, then in some possible world, it is false. In that world, (A & ~A)
(A & ~A) is a contradiction. — Banno
Replace the symbols with words. I don't know what they mean. — Bartricks
If not(any proposition and not that proposition) is not necessarily true, then in some possible world, it is false. In that world, any proposition and not that proposition. — Banno
Really? But you claim to be familiar - even expert - at logic. — Banno
That's question begging. — Bartricks
Incidentally, if Graham Priest was on this site, I assume you wouldn't debate him either? — Bartricks
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.