I mean by 'might', not necessary. As I said. Did you read what I said, or did you not understand your own definition of necessity?

I don't believe there are any necessary truths. So why do you keep asking me if I think this or that might have been otherwise? Of course I do! Consult your own definition of necessity!!

Necessary means 'not possiby' yes? And possibly means 'not necessarily' yes? That was your definition.

I also think hoity truths are, by definition, not toity truths. And a toity truth is a truth that is not hoity.

Was it hoity true that I might have said something different, or toity true? I know you like symbols as they persuade you you're doing something sophisticated. So, the symbol for a hoity truth is a chiliagon and the symbol for a toity truth is a testicle riding a horse into battle.

The claim that change does not require time is a conclusion. I concluded it from the fact God created time, which was itself a conclusion.
One can also arrive at it without mentioning God. For if an object undergoes a change by having some properties at some time that it does not have at another, then we have invoked a change in temporal properties, and so temporal properties themselves can change. And one cannot explain change by invoking time, as time itself changes, and thus we would have a change in one domain being explained by a change in another, but no analysis of what change itself is.

Your example didn't work. I explained why. You need to describe a conceivable scenario. You just asked me to imagine God watching time without being in it. Er, what?? When would he do that?

As for those quotes, I explicitly said that God would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world- and thus, God's existence implies we are not innocent and deserve to live in ignorance in a dangerous world.
That's consistent with us deserving everything that happens to us, and it is also consistent with us deserving to face the risk of harm the ignorance exposes us to. The context from which you took the second quote was one in which I was illustrating a point that, as ever, you were having trouble understanding due to its relative subtlety. And that point was that deserving something does not entail that it is right for someone else to give it to you. Indeed, you can deserve x and it can be very wrong for someone to give you it.

I do not know if we deserve every specific harm that befalls us, or just the exposure to the risk. But God does not have to know what happens to us here. Indeed, why would he care? I don't think God knows much of what goes on here, though my view is hardly settled on the matter. And that's consistent with being omniscient, so far as I can see. For being omniscient involves being in possession of all known propositions, not all truths.

No, Banno, denying there are necessary truths is not equivalent to saying that necessarily there are no necessary truths. That's as bonkers as thinking that 'there are no centaurs' is equivalent to 'necessarily, there are no centaurs'.

Necessary means 'not possiby' yes? And possibly means 'not necessarily' yes? That was your definition. — Bartricks

No, that's not how possibility and necessity are related. You left out a negation.

So not their meaning- ok. What does necessarily mean, then? I think it means hoity. Or it functions expressively. But what do you think it means, given you are so sure some truths have it?

In logic, a statement is necessarily true if it is true in every possible world.

But see Varieties of Modality for other uses.

Now, which sense are you using? It seems that you do not wish to use an extensional semantics.

What do you mean by a possible world?

Read Possible Worlds

Again, which sense of necessity are you using? It seems that you cannot use an extensional semantics.

Ah, so you don't know. Ok. Thought so.

I too don't know what necessity means, at least not when it is used descriptively.

Did you know that a hoity truth is a truth that holds in all toity worlds? Do you believe in hoity truths?

You should read Toity Worlds

so you don't know — Bartricks

Indeed, it is a point of some discussion. The usefulness of the part possible worlds play in possible world semantics is undeniable.

Except apparently by you. And Meta. Birds of one feather.

Yeah, you don't know what necessity means. It means the same as hoity. That is, nothing.
You have still yet to show how my claim that there are no necessary truths entails a contradiction. Come along - do so without begging the question (so, no assumption of the reality of necessity). All this time, and you haven't done it. Just squiggles and squoggles.
Now Banno, do you believe in hoity truths? You haven't said. Do you? I would draw the symbol for hoity, the chiliagon, but it takes about a day.

You've also not explained to me what Geach's criticism of mine and jesus' and Descartes' notion of omnipotence was. Why? Could you not find it either?

This discussion has forced you into mere repetition. Let's try a different direction.

Could god not exist?

No, it's forced you to do what you know not how to do.
Why do you keep asking me questions that you know my answer to, yet do not answer any of mine? Is it that you somehow believe you have me on the ropes? You, sir, are on the mat having your head pummelled, yet you persist in gurgling 'do you give up yet?'
I believe it is a toity truth that God exists. The symbol for toity is a testicle riding into battle on a horse. So imagine that in front of the proposition 'God exists'. But like I say, best to read Toity Worlds by Professor Boule Sheet.

Could god not exist?

If you think not, then you have claimed that god exists necessarily.

But you claim there are no necessary truths.

So are you obliged to conclude that god exists only contingently? What's the plot twist here?

I have already told you! That God exists is a toity truth, not a hoity one. Toity, not hoity. Contingent, not necessary. Toity, not hoity. Again, there is a horse. It has a big testicle on it's back, riding it into battle. And that is in front of the proposition 'God exists'. Toity, not hoity.

:rofl:

Cheers, then.

Just as question: does "all truth is contingent" mean "relativism is true"?

Not sure what you mean by relativism.

Not sure what you mean by relativism. — Bartricks

Well can a contingent truth be certainly true?

Yes.

It is certainly true that I exist. Yet I exist contingently.

I deny that there are any necessary truths. So you have to generate a contradiction without assuming that there are necessary truths — Bartricks

Similarly, I deny that God is subject to time. So you have to generate a contradiction without assuming that God is subject to time.

Your example didn't work. I explained why. — Bartricks

When would he do that? — Bartricks

Assumes God is subject to time. Try again. Or is there some explanation I'm missing that doesn't assume God is subject to time? Quote it then.

I do not know if we deserve every specific harm that befalls us, or just the exposure to the risk. — Bartricks

You should because you just said:

I do not believe all rape victims deserve to be raped. — Bartricks

So it must be the latter.

And this belief also implies that you accept that some people suffer more than they deserve (unsupervised exposure to risk will eventually result in someone suffering more than they deserve, rape victims for example). If so:

Despite having the ability to make it otherwise, why did God choose to make it possible that some people are punished much more than they deserve? — khaled

Choosing to make it possible for people to suffer unjustly, when you could just as easily make it otherwise is evil, correct? Not something an omnibenevolent being would do, correct?

So it's either
1- God is not omnibenevolent.
2- Everyone deserves each specific harm that happens to them.

Which is it?

But God does not have to know what happens to us here. Indeed, why would he care? — Bartricks

Because he's omnibenevolent so should care to ensure that no one is suffering too harshly, as that would be unjust. If he doesn't care to make sure that people aren't suffering too harshly for what they deserve, that's evil, making him not omnibenevolent. And as he's omnipotent he can choose to make it so that he knows what happens here. So the two attributes combined mean that he should indeed know what's going on here.

Similarly, I deny that God is subject to time. So you have to generate a contradiction without assuming that God is subject to time. — khaled

Neat.

God being spiritual being is the opposite of physical being.

Is time spiritual or physical?

How can God be subject to time if time is not spiritual?
Otherwise, how can God not be creator of time if time is physical?

If time is product of a mind then it's irrelevant to compare it to the nature of God, because "mind" is own to human nature.

You concluded:

Time, then, exists as the sensations of a mind. And of course, that mind will be the mind of God if God exists (which he does). — Bartricks

You have the burden of proof, remember? So you need to show how it could be that God and time could exist without the former being subject to the latter. Which you can't discharge. And asking me to just imagine it is lame and I can't.
Plus it is easy to generate a contradiction. If time exists, then everything that exists will exist in the present, or the past, or the future. Time exists. God exists, but not in the present, past or future. Therefore God exists in the present or past or future and God does not exist in the present past or future.

Subtle and not so subtle distinctions seem lost on you. First, believing something is not the same as knowing it. I don't know if we deserve every specific harm that befalls us or just the risk of them. That's consistent with not believing every rape victim deserves to be raped.

Second, if we deserve to be exposed to a risk of harm, then even though this may result in some receiving more harm than others, it does not follow that any injustice has been done. Again, consider the lottery example. In exchange for your dollar, you deserve a chance of winning the jackpot. However, if you lose, you do not thereby deserve to lose, even though your losing was no injustice. Likewise if you win; you do not deserve to win, but no injustice exists if you do. A good person who set up the lottery would not redistribute the winnings among the losers.

Why would God trouble himself to know what is going on with each of us?!? We're all bastards. That's why we're here. He hates us. Why would he monitor us? More efficient and less mentally harrowing just to put us aside and let us wallow in each other's company. Note, the very arbitrary nature of the harms that befall one, and the ignorance are all part of the punishment. Note too how little here seems fully knowable, a fact exploited by sceptics, but that also implies that God, the arbiter of knowledge and possessor of all of it does not know much of what goes on here.

What? Read the OP

What's I'm saying is God's mind is not our mind.

If time is only sensation in God's mind as you said, then why do we have sense of a time?

You also said:

Sensations can exist in minds and nowhere else. Minds and minds alone have sensations. Thus, the actual pastness of an event exists as the sensation of a mind. — Bartricks

Which contradicts to:

Time, then, exists as the sensations of a mind. And of course, that mind will be the mind of God if God exists (which he does). — Bartricks

There is no contradiction. We have sensations of time. They are 'of' time, but do not constitute it. Hence why we can have false impressions - something can appear more past than it is, etc.
But what they are sensations of, will themselves be sensations, for sensations resemble sensations and nothing else. And thus though time is not made of our temporal sensations, it is made of someone's.

I'm not just telling you, I am demonstrating it:
All theorems of propositional calculus are necessary theorems of modal logic.
The Law of Noncontradiction is a theorem of propositional calculus.
Therefore the Law of noncontradiction is a necessary theorem of modal logic.
If the Law of Noncontradiction is a necessary theorem, then it is not contingent.
The law of noncontradiction is not contingent.
So, where does this argument go wrong? Want me to do it for you? — Banno

:up:

Thus, the idea of God existing outside of time is a perfectly coherent one. — Bartricks

1. Then he can't be described as immortal whatever that implies.

2. God's omnipotence is related to His beyond-time nature. Contradictions don't apply to him, a contradiction being defined as a compound statement that something is and is not in the same sense and at the same time. Nice! :up: