I stand corrected, your issue is with the concept of necessity. Ok, that seems fair. Let me fire off a couple rounds towards contingently true.No, I am demanding an argument that doesn't presuppose the reality of necessity. I think the law of non contradiction is actually true. True, not false. So I am sensitive to actual contradictions. I don't think any are true. So, if my belief that the law of non contradiction is contingently true can be shown to generate an actual contradiction, then I will take that to be evidence my view is false. — Bartricks
...is quite right, in that rejecting noncontradiction renders all arguments void. If (p & ~p) then everything follows. So in a sense the argument I presented could not depend on logic, since @Bartricks has implicitly, and apparently unawares, rejected logic.You haven't provided an argument, as far as I can tell, to support that conclusion. — Janus
...that argument assumes what it seeks to prove — Janus
As some have already hinted, classical theism maintains that God is necessary being, not that God is a necessary being. In other words, God is not conceived as an individual being who "exists" in the sense of reacting with other individual things. — aletheist
The debate, then, is whether there is any possible world in which there is no God; theists say no, atheists say yes. — aletheist
The law of non-contradiction is TRUE. Contingent. But true. — Bartricks
It is a misunderstanding. We're flipping a coin and you are saying that it may(contingently) come up heads, so Banno is claiming this implies tails. Which would mean the other side of the coin must have tails. He sees that demonstrating the impossibility of tails demonstrates the necessity of heads.I reject NECESSITY. Not logic. NECESSITY. — Bartricks
Claiming that God is necessary being is not equating God with being.The equation of God with being seems odd ... — Janus
Classical theism, even in its Abrahamic versions, maintains that God is simple (not individual) and impassible--God acts on the world, but does not react with it.And God, at least the Abrahamic God, does "react with other individual things" via revelation and prayer. — Janus
Not when existence is understood as only one mode of being--reaction with other individual things in the environment. Possibility and conditional necessity are other modes of being.Also, the distinction between being and existence seems forced and unnecessary. — Janus
Like I said, it is really a definition rather than an argument.So, the argument looks silly to me from the get-go. — Janus
His position seems to preserve the meaning of the word possible. Your position at a glance implies an outcome can be possible and impossible.↪Cheshire He thinks that if it is possible for the law of non contradiction to be false, then it is actually false. Which is as absurd as thinking that if it is possible for unicorns to exist, then they do. And if it is possible for giraffes not to exist, then they don't. It's crazy, but he thinks the symbols show him this and he loves the symbols. — Bartricks
Claiming that God is necessary being is not equating God with being. — aletheist
Classical theism, even in its Abrahamic versions, maintains that God is simple (not individual) and impassible--God acts on the world, but does not react with it. — aletheist
Not when existence is understood as only one mode of being--reaction with other individual things in the environment. Possibility and conditional necessity are other modes of being. — aletheist
So, the argument looks silly to me from the get-go. — Janus
Like I said, it is really a definition rather than an argument. — aletheist
The debate, then, is whether there is any possible world in which there is no God; theists say no, atheists say yes. — aletheist
My reply was with the impression "contingently" was implying a contingency, but I find it is instead a place holder for without explicated necessity. What corresponds to the word necessary? All the other corresponding facts related to the truth of a proposition essentially make a truth necessary. Like, drawing two line segments of a triangle. The third one's length will be a necessary truth for a triangle to exist. Arguing the length of the third line could deviate from one outcome without basis, because it suites an unknown principle seems mildly dubious. Is there a good reason to suspect it is the case?↪Cheshire I do not understand your question. I don't even think the word 'contingent' does any real work, if that helps. I think there are true propositions and false ones. I don't think adding the word 'contingent'or 'necessary' adds anything. But I say that all truths are contingent as a way of making clear that I don't believe in necessity.
So my question would be 'what is it?' If a proposition is 'necessarily' true, what in the universe corresponds to the word necessary that makes it true? — Bartricks
You've evaded the question by changing terminology, but for the sake of the argument I'll play along; how do you know the law of non-contradiction is certainly true? — Janus
Which is as absurd as thinking that if it is possible for unicorns to exist, then they do.
— Bartricks
He's claiming they couldn't. You haven't shown they could. You need a 'could happen' for "possible" to obtain or whatever. — Cheshire
That is not what the word possible means and not the claim that's being made. "...then it by chance is false" is the issue. There is nothing to justify the assumption of a chance; as a result the assumption possibility fails; implying but not proving by your standard a necessity.What? No, he thinks that if it is 'possible' for the law of non-contradiction to be false, then it 'is' false. — Bartricks
What corresponds to the word necessary? All the other corresponding facts related to the truth of a proposition essentially make a truth necessary. — Cheshire
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.