Yes, Banno's argument is circular. Saying that there is a possible world in which God does not exist is to assert that God's existence is not necessary rather than to establish it.

But you say theists think God exists of necessity - but they don't, only some do. I am a theist and I believe God exists contingently (and that it is incoherent to think God exists of necessity). What makes one a theist is the belief that God exists.

So his argument, as well as being circular, addresses a straw man. Theism doesn't claim that God exists 'of necessity' but only that God exists.

But you say theists think God exists of necessity - but they don't, only some do. — Bartricks

No, I said that classical theism maintains that God is necessary being.

No, you said the debate is over whether there is any possible world in which God does not exist "theists say no, atheist yes". And I am not sure that classical theism is a well defined view anyway. But the word 'classical' was not there.
Anyway, the idea that God exists of necessity is not definitive of theism. Indeed, it is incoherent.

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

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.

Contingency implies there is a subject that our point of interest is contingent on. An offer to purchase something is contingent on the funds or credit to make the purchase. The maintenance of non-contradiction is contingent on what exactly?

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm pretty sure it was a mere bit of rhetoric on his part. At least, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. IF he really doesn't understand propositional variables, negation and brackets, then he's in the wrong place.

If there are possible worlds that don't exist these would be ones that God didn't create. He is necessary, not his creations. That is what theism is about. Those are ontological questions. If there are worlds where the law of non contradiction doesn't apply, we are making a division between our world and another world. But if the God connecting them is above the laws of both anything could be possible. If we are necessary then we can understand the world. If God is necessary we can not be sure of anything. Therefore to know is to be an atheist

There's a problem one faces when someone proposes that we accept contradictions. It renders argument effectively impossible. so your

You haven't provided an argument, as far as I can tell, to support that conclusion. — Janus

...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.

So yes,

...that argument assumes what it seeks to prove — Janus

... is more rhetoric than logic, because it aims to have Bart accept logic as a basis for discussion.

Er, no, I have not rejected logic. Christ, you are woefully bad at logic. I don't know what the symbols mean, yet you don't know what follows from what.

I reject NECESSITY. Not logic. NECESSITY.

You think that's the same, right? That's dumb. Really dumb.

The law of non-contradiction is TRUE. Contingent. But true.

You think that means I think it is necessarily false. Which is bonkers. I mean, just crazy. How does that begin to follow??

Reasoning well isn't about knowing what symbols mean. As you are demonstrating.

To everyone: don't let banno use symbols. Ask him to explain in English. Then notice his arguments don't work or don't exist.

Cheers, Bart. You have yourself a good day, now.

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?

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 equation of God with being seems odd, since being or existence, (per se, as opposed to individual beings or existents) seems necessary, if anything does. And God, at least the Abrahamic God, does "react with other individual things" via revelation and prayer. Also, the distinction between being and existence seems forced and unnecessary. A being is logically equivalent to an existent, and being is logically equivalent to existence, or so it seems to me, as I cannot see any distinction which doesn't seem artificial in the sense of not being based on ordinary parlance, but on some tendentious stipulation.

The debate, then, is whether there is any possible world in which there is no God; theists say no, atheists say yes. — aletheist

If being is necessary, as it seems to be and God is equated with being, then it would seem to be tautologically, and hence trivially, true that God is in all possible worlds, since being must be so, or else it would not be a world. That said, it seems odd to talk about being or God being in a world, since a world is being, and God is taken to be the creator and sustainer of worlds. So, the argument looks silly to me from the get-go.

:up:

Yes, off you run. When you have an actual argument that shows my claim that the law of non contradiction is contingently true, do say.

In the meantime, good luck with your symbol spells. Bartricks has contradicted himself because he believes that the law of non contradiction is contingently true...but now watch the magic symbols (^)*%$#@€£¥₩₩₩₩ . ...Kazam!!! A contradiction!! That's logic children. Logic with Banno. Remember kids, it's not how you think that counts, it is the symbols you use - #$%/#!!!^&*¥ Kazam!

The law of non-contradiction is TRUE. Contingent. But true. — Bartricks

If the law of non-contradiction is contingent, how do you know it is true right now. It might have been true five minutes ago, yet now not true; how would you ever be able to tell whether it was true or not at some particular time?

How do you know it is necessarily true? Do you see, touch, smell, taste or hear its necessity? Tell me how you are aware of its status as a necessary truth, and I will use those same means to show you that it isn't.

And yes, it could cease to be true at any moment. But I could cease to exist at any moment, yet i can be sure i exist.

You are confusing 'necessarily true' with 'certainly true'.

The law of non contradiction is certainly true, just as my own existence is. But both are contingently true.

I reject NECESSITY. Not logic. NECESSITY. — 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.

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.

The equation of God with being seems odd ... — Janus

Claiming that God is necessary being is not equating God with being.

And God, at least the Abrahamic God, does "react with other individual things" via revelation and prayer. — 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.

Also, the distinction between being and existence seems forced and unnecessary. — 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.

So, the argument looks silly to me from the get-go. — Janus

Like I said, it is really a definition rather than an argument.

↪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

His position seems to preserve the meaning of the word possible. Your position at a glance implies an outcome can be possible and impossible.

The law of non contradiction is certainly true, just as my own existence is. But both are contingently 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?

Claiming that God is necessary being is not equating God with being. — aletheist

I don't understand how being can be divided into necessary and contingent.Non-being cannot be, so being must be necessary. It is only beings that can be contingent or so it seems to logically follow.

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

If God is distinct from other beings then God must be individual, no? Is the Abrahamic God impassible? Does He not become angry and disappointed with his creatures? You say God does not react with the world; does he react to it, and if so, is that a difference that makes a difference?

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

I guess we can use terminology however we like provided we are consistent in that use. Ordinary parlance, however, would have it that possibilities and conditional necessities exist, albeit in different ways than concrete entities.

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

I was responding to this:

The debate, then, is whether there is any possible world in which there is no God; theists say no, atheists say yes. — aletheist

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.

Wittgenstein says if the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. Proposition 6.5. See,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#:~:text=So%2C%20God%2C%20by%20nature%20logical,object%20and%20an%20unstoppable%20force . Particularly the section "Language and omnipotence."

I don't find it particularly helpful, but you might, considering your affinity for the source.

Look! The devil quoting scripture... :wink:

Your clever reply would have been to quote Genesis 11:1 to 11:9 to me. Should we speak the exact same language, directly without confusion among speakers, our power would challenge God's. All fiction. All symbolic. All true.

The epistemology of the theist doesn't rely upon facts, but upon fiction. Unapologetically. For me at least.

↪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

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?

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

I haven't changed the terminology. You are changing the topic from metaphysics to epistemology. Now, you tell me how you know the law of non-contradiction is true - i mean, you think it is true, right? - and that'll almost certainly be how I know it is true as well.

Then you tell me how you know that it is 'necessarily' true, and I will show you that it is contingently so.

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

What? No, he thinks that if it is 'possible' for the law of non-contradiction to be false, then it 'is' false.

I think that's absurd - that there is no argument for that claim that doesn't just assume necessity.

Note, the question isn't whether the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth or a contingent one.

He is claiming that my view - that it is a contingent truth - implies a contradiction. An actual contradiction. It doesn't. He has no argument to show this.

Whether it is actually contingent or necessary is another matter. What's at issue is whether my view - not his, mine - is self-consistent.

What? No, he thinks that if it is 'possible' for the law of non-contradiction to be false, then it 'is' false. — Bartricks

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 corresponds to the word necessary? All the other corresponding facts related to the truth of a proposition essentially make a truth necessary. — Cheshire

I don't know what that means.

If a proposition is true, it is true in virtue of corresponding to some state of affairs. Now, what is the truth maker for 'necessary' in 'necessarily true'?

If that question doesn't really make sense to you, join the club. Propositions are true or false. There's no such thing as 'necessarily' true. Just true.

Impossible to be otherwise is pretty close to necessary.