You have no logical reason believing you have a real past

We were talking about God, not you. If we don't know what will happen at all as it is the case with God we treat it as 50/50. We all do that

I can't believe I have to spell this out. If God can do anything then he can change the past. So it's as likely you never had parents as that you did. You've thereby destroyed your existence because of you insistence on some she God

Why would it be 50/50? I have a coffee every morning. I don't have to. I just do. But the chance that I will have one tomorrow is not 50/50, but about 90/10. — Bartricks

We were talking about God acting not you

Yes. Powerful, eh? — Bartricks

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!

Your position on relativism leads straight to solipsism. I've had threads on relativism but not any as extreme as yours

for it is due to her that there are not any. — Bartricks

So every second that follows in the future has a 50/50 chance of staying consistent? And what about the past? If God can do contradictions "she" can make the past such as that you were never born, nursed, or grew up.

Yet you say you are Cartesian. Descartes thought God couldn't lie to him about what he say around him and how people were. Yet your God of Contradictions can do this. How can you be sure of your own thoughts if you are contingent? And if God can make contradictions everywhere around in between any second on any day, God can fool you in any way possible. You become a Quietest. I've never come across a relativism so complete as yours and I think about the theory every day

For the third or fourth time, how do you God didn't make contradictions true for everyone except Bartricks? Why arguing with people whom your Lord of Contradictions may have given true wisdom? You don't try to figure other people's posts, admit you are wrong, or try to learn from others. That makes you not a good person to have a conversation with

You're stuck, stumbling, and stalling

Wrong again. How do you know your God of relativism hasn't given everyone their own truth. Your "guy at the top" has no logical rules to follow, so there is no reason for you to argue with people who (perhaps) have a different truth value to follow. You are the one painted yourself into a corner. To be logical you can only stop arguing with people

No. From your ontology on God's nature you have to posit that each person might have their own soliptistic epistemology and truths. So why are you on this forum?

Why are you arguing with people who might have a different epistemology then?

Why would you trust aged paper instead of modern brains?

How would you know if the law of contradiction changes suddenly? Can it change for you and not us? Why or why not?

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

Could there be a deeper truth about ourselves that always escapes perception? Sartre, Freud, and many others say "yes". That is the in-itself of us. Some say that this consists of the only truth there is and that thinking with Kant about the thing in itself of the world is illusion. I personally think there is more "out there" that we can't know rather than subjective stuff. And maybe there is a connection between what we should learn internally and what alludes us outside ourselves. I am not saying everything is One, like Zeno and all them. I'm considering what way I can understand the world and ourselves if there be a unifying idea or whether there is more of a demarcation between us and any deeper reality that explains more too us then that which we already know

Just wanted to point out that Bartricks couldn't figure out your symbols when they are actually really easy to read even for me who has never studied symbolic logic. He has an inflated idea of his abilities, and probably borderline or some thing

I would add that Bartricks believes in absolute relativism because his God is so powerful it can do a contradiction. He wants to make a nuance that God created the world with laws but there is the point still that his God can change that and *anything* else while we are having this discussion

You have a good point. Necessity starts with us instead of realizing some necessary outside ourselves. That's what came to mind when I read your post. If I have the idea "1+1=2" then the necessary truth of it is in my mind and is my mind, because the mind is an organic unity. When I perceive the world I know I must exist because I exist in the moment. The necessity of life is felt when there is no anxiety. God would have to be our own consciousness if the idea of it is necessary

You don't own the Bible, the Bible owns you if you want to sell yourself to it

Why would anyone trust ancient religious texts when they are just human writings and contradict each other?

I have not contradicted myself. But you say you're right when God might have made you wrong. There is no probability to what God might do in your system. Your total relativism, with God at the top, is self contradictory

So the law of contradiction can be set aside for us. So God can make you always wrong and me always right, you bad and me always innocent. God can do anything in our world. Maybe he make you bad last night and the rest of the world good such that you are the only bad person in existence. This is your logic not mine. Your trying to find a bubble but God can do anything so you have none

So how do you know God hasn't made it such that everyone should believe in the law of contradiction except she predestined you to not agree with it in order to convict you of a sin. God can do anything, even make this seem improbable to you as you slip towards hell. You think this world is home but God can do anything anything, make you wrong in this debate, make you evil though you don't know, anything whatsoever she wishes

So maybe God can do everything but doesn't do any contradictions except one: to make Bartricks always wrong. Maybe "she" is out to get you

Maybe "God", who you say can do anything, predestined that Banno be right is this discussion and you wrong. But you don't like to be contradicted and hate when others disagree with you because you throw what appear as tantrums because you think you are so smart. I don't think you're a bot but others of have claimed this already. You don't learn from other people and that is an issue of maturity

Why not say that in this world logic applies and in another works something beyond logic could apply, a logic that dovetails our own in a way but is not contradictory? Why insist that contradiction instead of sublation is possible? You don't know if your God experiences his contradictions as contradictions

The best way to read the Christian bible is to see Jesus as the Anti-christ and the whole thousands of years of "God will save us in the future" being the vanity of vanity. Taking it's words sheepishly misses the whole story.

Hegel writes that way. I read and reread hundreds of pages of such. It's a striking style.

Now logic is about the forms of itself and can't comment on the inexperienced. You admit this! So then modal logic is just logic and much closer to programming than philosophy

Has modal logic always fail or has it proved something which takes logic to prove? After all logic is about proof

Aristotle did, indeed, describe the figures of syllogism just as he did with countless other forms of spirit and nature, but in his metaphysical concepts he was so far from seeking to make the form of the syllogism of the understanding the basis and criterion that one might say not a single one of the metaphysical concepts could have arisen or stood on ground, if it had been subjected to the laws of logic. Even if, in his own way, Aristotle began much that is essentially a product of description and of understanding, the speculative concept is always what is dominant for him, and he does not allow the forms of syllogism to govern or encroach on the sphere of speculative philosophy- Hegel in "Logic"

What I see as the problem with modal logic and the way many posters reason on this forum too is trying to use logic to prove something beyond itself. Proper philosophical intuition rarely considers logic as logic

First order logic gets its content from non logic

Name one thing in modal logic literature that proved something in philosophy.

But logic is about contrapositives, inverse minor premises, ect. It's useful to understand how to understand one's own thinking and map the world, but the great questions of philosophy can't be answered thru finding the final modal logic idea that settles everything. Doesn't modal logic implicitly assume it can settle these questions one and for all?

All that comes from non logic. ML tries to rule over philosophy like logicism tried to do with math

I've been clear but you don't follow. Aristotle had philosophy-like arguments for the first mover, something ML doesn't have. I stated right at the start that logic is used in science just as math is. But logic can't say what can exist and what can't. It is plain old logic at the end of the day, and yes for Aristotle metaphysics is not logic. This is all common knowledge

Aristotle would never take the ontological argument under consideration. But modal theorists struggle with it nevertheless

Those links are about computer science

Modal logical leads to it's using the ontological argument. That's the best example of how ML can go to far

Ok, well I learn something every day. There might be some of that which would register with me.