So you reject all history because "God" can make the past different from what he was. Descartes just as likely started WWII in your worldview as Hitler, and Buddha was the big bang! — Gregory
Your position on relativism leads straight to solipsism. — Gregory
Generally, I'd say I am agreement with skepticism when comes to knowing we have established truth beyond doubt. But, extending it to self-referential systems like logic or mathematics might be further than reason allows. Put another way the law of non-contradiction is maintained in certainty because of the meaning inherent in something being true or false. But, truth in reality appears so often an approximation instead of a binary assignment that I suppose the opposite could be true in practice.Our reason tells us that some things 'must' be so, and others are merely 'possibly' so. Philosophers (with the occassional exception, such as me) then think that there is, in addition to truth, 'mustness' and 'possibility'. There is not. There's just God being adamant and God being tentative. — Bartricks
Why not leave it on an agreement. At least till sunrise.↪Cheshire Yes, to say that something is 'possibly true' is normally to express tentativeness. And that's fine. That's how I generally use it. Similarly, if someone says "that 'must' be true" they mean to express certainty. — Bartricks
How do you know it is 'necessarily' true, as opposed to just true? — Bartricks
because otherwise discussants could make whatever self-contradictory statements they liked, and discussions would be reduced to nonsense. — Janus
Why not? You think it is only if the past is necessary that we can know about it? — Bartricks
I am able to take the glass in front of me and smash it into my face. That is something I can do. — Bartricks
Look, I don't have a limitless supply of glasses to smash into my face. — Bartricks
God is supposed to be a necessary being. Something is necessary if it is true in every possible world. — Banno
Logic is needed in order to have the discussion, not as a consequence of the discussion. — Banno
I think you're using "necessary" in a way different from how the classical theologians used it. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm saying your God has the ability to change the past, and your memories of it, and not tell you. In which case you'd have no way of knowing whether or not he did so. So, you have no way of knowing whether or not he has or has not changed the past. You have no evidence in support of either proposition. — khaled
We were discussing the God as explained by Bartricks — Gregory
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.