Hey, my OP, my god. — Banno
...a thing is necessary only if it exists in every possible world.
But if there is a possible world in which that things does not exist, then it is not necessary. — charles ferraro
As I've been saying all along.SO if someone is certain about god, it is not as a consequence of deliberation. — Banno
Yes. A hinge commitment....and as a consequence it is irrational; it stands outside of rational considerations. It is perhaps there are a part of what Wittgenstein called "hinge propositions".
Taken into consideration by whom?The issue then becomes the extent to which such beliefs should be taken into consideration when deciding what to do.
What exactly is being used: those texts, or some people's certainty about them?Why would anyone trust ancient religious texts when they are just human writings and contradict each other?
Indeed. And yet these are used in deciding issues such as abortion, euthanasia, women's rights and so on.
It's pretty clear that Bart is using a confused notion of the relation between necessity and contingency. — Banno
If God is a necessary being, his existence is entailed by the rules of logic. Such is the meaning of "necessary." The statement "God is a necessary being" therefore defines God as subservient to logic and caused by logic. Such entails logic preexisting God. — Hanover
Along these lines, I'd point out that the most important truths we learn are through fiction. What then of this fiction that speaks the truth? — Hanover
Not to be glib, but you're supposed to feel that truth in your heart.If fiction is the path to truth, you've lost at least one basis to abandon religion. You don't have to believe the sea parted, just that there is a truth being told there.
— Hanover
But what is that truth? The moment you say what it is, you are wrong. — Banno
If God is a necessary being, his existence is entailed by the rules of logic.
— Hanover
I'm not so sure. Kripke broke the link between necessity and the a priori; do you want to put it back? Do we have grounds to do so? — Banno
It's not clear that this is what all actual monotheists mean by God being necessary (apart from those in particular who argue like the above). Rather, the necessity of God's existence in monotheism is to be understood in contradistinction with the optionality or relativity of human existence, as in: God is necessary, but man is not; man is only optional. — baker
God is generally described as eternal, so the idea that he was caused really doesn't make logical sense. — Hanover
Why must it be broken? Justify. — baker
You seem to think that if I think it is possible for the law of non-contradiction to be false, then I think it is false. — Bartricks
You haven't explained it once - not once. — Bartricks
The true things can not be false without dissolving the meaning of true. — Cheshire
The LNC is a model of our expectations about the world. The model is undeniably consistent, but the assumption it will always correspond to the facts for the rest of time out into infinite starts to seem just as bold as questioning the LNC when you take the scale into account. Would finding an exception have implications; I imagine, but some exotic singular case could flicker through reality for a moment. But, it does feel like irrational speculation.Note that Bart is not following this path. Paraconsistent logics claim that LNC is not true. He claimed that LNC is true, but not necessary. As I pointed out above, LNC is a theorem of propositional logic, and all such theorems are necessarily true. — Banno
The model is undeniably consistent, but the assumption it will always correspond to the facts for the rest of time out into infinite starts to seem just as bold as questioning the LNC when you take the scale into account. — Cheshire
I don't think the empty chance of the model failing warrants further consideration of anything tangential. But, the universe is very big and time implies it's in constant flux; so in a nearly trivial point of ceremony I'd have to reserve an or not, but ignore it without any trouble. If something can be dismissed perhaps it ought be doubt concerning the LNC. I don't disagree and see the counter-point as the definition of arguing at extremes.I don't think time plays a role here. I think logic tells us what we can reasonably say, and helps us recognise when we've said stuff wrong. Our response to any apparent contradiction must be to rephrase the issue. — Banno
Superposition is not an example of a real-life contradiction. If it were, we would be able to conclude absolutely anything. Rather, superposition is described within a mathematics that takes LNC to be true. — Banno
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.