That's a quite different argument - there you are arguing that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth, rather than a contingent one.

But your original accusation was that 'I' am contradicting myself in holding it to be contingent. So to make good on that charge you do not need to defend its necessary status, you need to show how believing it to be contingently true commits me to affirming an actual contradiction.

I don't believe there are any necessary truths. That's 'why' I believe the law of non-contradiction is contingently true. I am happy to argue against there being any necessary truths, but you are question begging if you just assume there are in the course of making your case that my position is contradictory. Again, you need to show my view to be self-contradictory, not banno-contradictory.

...there you are arguing that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth, rather than a contingent one. — Bartricks

All this does is show that you havn't understood the relation between a necessary truth and a contingent one. A truth is necessary only if it is not possible for it not to be true. You don;t get one without the other.

I don't believe there are any necessary truths. — Bartricks

I see. So there can never be any necessary truths, in any circumstances.

And presumably that there are no necessary truths is not a necessary truth - after all, if it were, you would be contradicting yourself.

SO that there are no necessary truths is itself a contingent truth. And yet true in all situations. And this is not a contradiction.

Basically, you've got no idea.

When it comes to metaphysical possibilities, it seems to me that the issue is whether we think Reason determines what is or isn't possible, or our imaginations. I think it is obvious which it is: Reason. The idea that what we can conceive of or not should determine what's possible seems to me clearly to be a case of human hubris. Reason determines what is and isn't possible and for precisely that Reason anything is possible with Reason.

Like I say, you're just very conventional.

I deny necessity. One way to express that is to say that one thinks all truths are contingent. But I don't need that word 'contingent'. I don't believe there is a property of contingency that truths have in addition to being true.

And it is you who is confused: you seem to think that there are necessarily necessary truths - how do you make that case without begging the question?!?

I don't believe there are any necessary truths.
— Bartricks

I see. So there can never be any necessary truths, in any circumstances. — Banno

You don't see. How does that follow? How does my claim that there are no necessary truths imply that there can't be?

You seem to have real trouble understanding the difference between saying that something is possible and something is actual.

There are no necessary truths. That's actually true. But it doesn't have to be. It just is.

But your original accusation was that 'I' am contradicting myself in holding it to be contingent. So to make good on that charge you do not need to defend its necessary status, you need to show how believing it to be contingently true commits me to affirming an actual contradiction. — Bartricks

And presumably that there are no necessary truths is not a necessary truth - after all, if it were, you would be contradicting yourself. — Banno

You laid out a compelling argument for specific evidence. Banno produced it.
The negation of "necessary" must be at least equal to the force of it's assertion. Now, the LNC alone not necessary; but nothing necessary just means we throw out the LNC because it's not nothing. Poor strategy for such a long reach.

Sure, Bart.

You laid out a compelling argument for specific evidence. Banno produced it.
The negation of "necessary" must be at least equal to the force of it's assertion. Now, the LNC alone not necessary; but nothing necessary just means we throw out the LNC because it's not nothing. Poor strategy for such a long reach. — Cheshire

He didn't. He just assumed that there are necessary relations (precisely what I deny) and then appealed to them to try and show how the belief that it is possible for the law of non-contradiction to be false commits one to affirming its actual falsity.

If you are trying to show that someone is committed to affirming a contradiction, then you have to grant them their premises, not insist on your own. Otherwise all one is doing is showing that they are contradicting 'you', not 'themselves'.

Again then: the law of non-contradiction is true. That, we can surely all agree, is not a contradictory thing to say. And it is what I say. Banno thinks that it is a contradictory thing to say (which is somewhat ironic). It isn't.

One does not need to add anything to it - one does not need to say that it is 'necessarily' true in order for it to be true. It is just true. Plain and simple.

Now when it comes to necessity, I think it names nothing clear. The point, though, is that not appending the words 'and necessarily so' to the claim that "the law of non-contradiction is true' is not needed to avoid violating the law of non-contradiction . Again: the law of non-contradiction is true. And that's all I need to say about it. And saying it does not involve me in a contradiction. If Banno thinks it does, then he needs to show it - and show it not by just assuming it is necessarily true, but by showing how denying this commits one to a contradiction.

Funny thing is he's a thread over arguing how adding "absolute objective" is an empty term. At the core both are a complaint of adding extra words that carry some intrinsic ethereal value. Which maybe isn't necessary or not.

Your OP stated "God is supposed to be a necessary being." I would consider that analytic a priori because I don't know how one should be expected to know God is necessary a posteriori. That attribute of God as you've presented it appears purely definitional. Thus my analysis holds. — Hanover

Ok, sounds about right.

wut — 180 Proof

very happy to see that i wasn’t the only one who didn’t get it either :sweat:

Why must it be broken? Justify.
— baker

Because people shouldn't replace morals with Leviticus 20:13 (for example)? — jorndoe

You're letting yourself be dragged onto their turf, exactly what I warned against.

Not interested in your passive - aggressive schtick. — Banno

embarrassingly ironic.

All of this comes down to the extremely uninteresting claim that he believes God exists. That God does exist has not and cannot be demonstrated, and so, it is is, as he acknowledges something he believes. Until shown to be otherwise God's existence remains a matter of belief, or to state it otherwise, whose existence is contingent upon belief.

embarrassingly ironic. — Ignance

I'm still here.

If you have something to say, say it, and I will reply.

But see How to Deal with a Passive Aggressive Person

Several times I entered into conversation with Protagoras, who then followed the pattern described in the article cited.

He has since been banned.

If your unstated statement is that I am passive aggressive, then I beg to differ. I'm mostly just aggressive.

All of this comes down to the extremely uninteresting claim that he believes God exists. — Fooloso4

He is an intelligent fellow who has perhaps missed out on receiving a decent education. Hence he grasps half-formed ideas and nails them to the mast; he then feels obliged to defend them to the point of absurdity, quite literally.

One of the things that happens - or should happen - in formal academic study is a student spending considerable time and effort in developing ideas, only to have them torn to shreds. It teaches one what to do when one is wrong.

Given a better background in logic, he might be able to mount a case in terms of fideism and Dialetheism. That would be interesting.

"Everything is permitted" because there are no deities, or no transcendent lawgiver. This, however, "does not mean nothing is forbidden" by mortals who, mostly as strangers, must live together — 180 Proof

That's a good point. "Everything is permitted" refers to humanity as a whole, freed from the constraints of a deity imposing moral law from above. But of course many things, namely those which create egregious social disharmony, will not be permitted by persons.

You can do whatever you want; but you ought not.

Yes, but even God allowed that; he gave us free will after all.

And it is you who is confused: you seem to think that there are necessarily necessary truths - how do you make that case without begging the question?!? — Bartricks

Although this is not directly addressed to me, it goes back to your last response to a post of mine which I did not in turn respond to. Recall that I said that the LNC is necessary for rational discussion to be possible; so the necessity of the LNC is relative to, contingent upon, the possibility of rational discussion, well actually to the possibility of any rational thought. I was not proposing any more absolute necessity than that. I hope this clears the point up for you.

A person on the constraint of a deity is not free. A person who follows his conscience because he was taught to is free.

in formal academic study is a student spending considerable time and effort in developing ideas, only to have them torn to shreds. — Banno

I suppose it is possible but very difficult to make it through while maintaining the belief that you have all the answers.

It teaches one what to do when one is wrong. — Banno

This is a valuable lesson. Some drop out rather than learn it.

he gave us free will after all. — Janus

What's that, then. As in, it's pretty unclear that there is a workable sense of free will.

Did we do that? I don't think I've expounded on that for a good while. Maybe a new thread.

The word 'necessity' doesn't have a single meaning, and the meaning it has in 'necessary for rational discussion' does not denote metaphysical necessity of the kind I deny.

I don't think it is necessary for rational discussion even in that non-metaphysical sense (and this is demonstrable, for there are philosophers who deny the actual truth of the law of non-contradiction and they do engage in rational debate over the matter). But putting that aside, I affirm the law of non-contradiction, I do not deny it.

What I want to know from you, however, is how you know the law of non-contradiction is true. Even if you are correct and its truth has to be presupposed as a condition of being able to engage in reasoned debate, that is not how you can know it to be true.

For an analogy, let's say you claim to know that God exists. I ask you how you know this. You answer that belief in God is a precondition of going to church being rational.

Well, that's questionable, but even if it is true, that wouldn't be an answer to the question. Pointing out that belief in X is a precondition of the rationality of a certain practice - be it reasoning or going to church or anything at all - is not an answer to the question 'how do you know it to be true?"

So again, how do you know the law of non-contradiction to be true? I think it is true and I have my own answer to the question, but I want to know what your answer is.

Haha, I just meant that according to dogma God gave us free will. So, although God is seen as a lawgiver, he is not understood to force us to do the "right thing"; that is left up to us. OF COURSE THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES !

As in, it's pretty unclear that there is a workable sense of free will. — Banno

It makes sense to most people.

The word 'necessity' doesn't have a single meaning, and the meaning it has in 'necessary for rational discussion' does not denote metaphysical necessity of the kind I deny. — Bartricks

Yes, and I already said earlier, a couple times if I am not mistaken, that I make no metaphysical claim beyond saying that the LNC is necessary for rational thought and discussion.

I don't think it is necessary for rational discussion even in that non-metaphysical sense (and this is demonstrable, for there are philosophers who deny the actual truth of the law of non-contradiction and they do engage in rational debate over the matter). — Bartricks

Do their arguments contradict themselves?

So again, how do you know the law of non-contradiction to be true? I think it is true and I have my own answer to the question, but I want to know what your answer is. — Bartricks

I don't know what you mean by asking your question here. I haven't said the LNC is true, but merely that it is necessary for rational thought and discussion. Forget the LNC, if it makes it easier to understand, I'll just say that not contradicting yourself in your rational thoughts and discussions is necessary for the sense and integrity of those thoughts and discussions.

It makes sense to most people. — frank

Yep. until they think about it.

Yep. until they think about it. — Banno

The same thing happens with cosmology. The universe makes no sense... yet

To be sure, Dialethism is a respectable option for a philosopher. But it involves asserting that LNC is false. Bart has asserted that it is true.

I don't agree, at least in so far as we know far more about the universe now than we did a hundred years ago.