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.

Science investigates the sensible world. There's no reason to think God has a sensible body, and even if he did, it would be beyond science to establish that the body in question was God's. For one would have to show that there was a mind inhabiting it - which is not something science can do even in our case - and furthermore that this mind was, among other things, morally perfect - which is once more, not something science investigates. So science is really no more inthe business of finding God than a metal detectorist is.

Wishful thinking. Not all believers are alike. I am a believer in God and I will stop believing if you refute my argument for God's existence, as it is solely on its basis that I believe in him. I doubt, however, that your failure to refute it would have any influence over your disbelief. Just a hunch.

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?

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

What do you mean by a possible world?

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?

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'.

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.

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.

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.

Yes.
Now, once more, without assuming that necessity is real, demonstrate that by claim that it isn't commits me to a contradiction. For I accept that no true proposition is also false, and so I accept that if you can do that, then you have demonstrated my view to be false.

What?

I deny that there are any necessary truths. So you have to generate a contradiction without assuming that there are necessary truths, otherwise all you are doing is assuming I am wrong, not showing me to be. So you don't even understand the task.
Note, I think A is identical with itself. I don't think that's a necessary truth though. It's just true.

Part of why I think it is no great loss to deny that necessity is real, is precisely because if one tries to say exactly what one means by 'necessary', one will be reduced to saying what you just did, which is that it means 'not possibly', which says nothing if it turns out that 'possibly' just means 'not necessarily'. So, that's part of why I think adding 'necessarily' to 'true' adds nothing whatever and why I can do away with it at no loss at all.

For instance, let's just say that some truths are hoity truths. What are they? Why, a hoity truth is not a toity truth, that's what a hoity truth is. And what is a toity truth? A toity truth is a truth that is not hoity.

Seems to me that in your hands the word 'necessarily' adds no more to 'true' than hoity would. That is, nothing at all. Which if true, means that you agree with me that we can dispense with it, just as we can with hoity and, indeed, toity. Do you? That is, do you agree that both 'necessarily' and 'possibly' add nothing and we can dispense with them and just stick to talking about what's true and what's not? If so, welcome to my view. You are now a guest in the land of the intelligent - don't steal anything.

Now, I do not know what 'possibly' means. I really don't. And I don't think it adds anything to 'true'. However, I can use it to convey to others that I do not believe in necessary truths. And that is how I use it. The English language was developed long before i came here, and by people more ignorant and less dedicated to following reason than I. As such I am fated to have to express myself using the tools of fools. But whatever. If I wish to convey to you that I do not believe in necessary truths - and by extension, do not believe that the law of non-contradiction is a necessary truth - I say that I believe it is contingently true, or possibly true, even though I think 'contingently' adds no more to 'true' than 'necessarily' did.

So, now that you are using English and not squiggles and squoggles, explain to me how my claim that the proposition 'no true proposition is also false' is true - just true, note - generates a contradiction....and do that without popping the word necessarily in

Oh good grief. I knew someone would start talking about language. Look, take the moral it was designed to convey and focus on the thread's OP.

This thread is about the nature of time and God's relationship to it.

We can get it back on topic by, say, focussing on the claim, made by some, that the past is unalterable - the so called 'necessity' of the past. A claim that I deny, of course.

For someone who claims to understand logic, this is really a quite remarkable remark... "don't do logic at me!" — Banno

No, this is the problem with you - you think that 'logic' is squiggling and squoggling. No, that's just a language that some of those who are using logic employ. I don't know the language (and I don't care to learn, for it seems to me that I am better at reasoning than many of those who know the language, for when I ask them to stop using it, they either can't, or it becomes clear that their reasoning is poor; so why would I take the time and effort to learn a language that, so far as I can see, would not help me reason better than I actually am?). But that doesn't mean I don't know how to reason. That's like thinking someone who doesn't know French, doesn't know anything when they are in France. It's dumb. I know the same things, I just don't understand what the French are on about.

Now, I think your squiggling and squoggling is a parrot saying 'hello, who's a pretty boy then?!" That is, I don't think that in your case you are using a language at all, rather you are simulating using one.

You can show me wrong by dropping it and speaking in English. It has the largest vocabulary of any human language - so if you can't say it in English, you probably don't know what you're on about.

Yes, but triangle, goat, walnut, worm, square, windy road. What about that? Surely if chicken tree hole, then hole chicken tree?

There are no true propositions that are also false. None. (Well, there might be - but we'll ignore those).

There are no centaurs either (apart from the one that seems to be in the trees over there, but we'll ignore that as it's probably just someone dressed up).

Now, sticking to the centaur claim for a moment - I have not just said that there are no situations in which there are centaurs. That is, I have not said it is impossible for there to be centaurs. Someone who thought I had, would be a bit of a wally. Yes? Centaurs can exist. I have just said that there aren't any. I've done a survey of reality - and it seems centaur free. That, I assume you would agree, is a claim that does not generate a contradiction.

Now just exchange the word 'centaur' for 'true proposition that is also false' and you'll get the idea. Only you won't, because, you know, you won't. Stop being a wally and explain - without squiggling and squoggling - how my claim that there are no true propositions that are also false generates a contradiction. Methinks you won't be able to do so. That is, I think your conviction that my claim generates a contradiction is equivalent to a conviction that there are centaurs. It is possibly true, but actually false.

Then address something in the OP. This thread is about time, for goodness sake!

Tell me, Bartricks, what would convince you that your argument is wrong? — Banno

A better one. Obviously.

Hoity toity. Come on Dummo, tell me what Geach said. I read it. It was shit. I could discern no actual criticism in it. All filler, no killer.
— Bartricks
...the resort to personal abuse. — Banno

No, it is fair comment - you 'think' he made an actual criticism. He didn't. Find it. He just went 'hoity toity' and 'hotium totium, as we said in my old school' and sneered at minds far greater than his dusty musty own. (He's dead, he won't care).

He's right, what he claims is that it is true in all situations, — Banno

No I don't. I think it is true. True. It doesn't have to be. It is. There are no centaurs. I don't think there are no centraurs in any possible situation (whatever that means). I think there are no centaurs. I am quite certain of it. But I don't thereby think it is impossible for there to be centaurs. I think propositions that are true and false at once are like centaurs in that respect as well. There aren't any. None anywhere. (Although perhaps there are, in fact, some - such as 'this proposition is false'.....but that's another issue...that's like a glimpse of what looked for all the world like a centaur).

The contradiction is in your claim that the LNC is true in all possible situations but not necessarily true. — Banno

I don't claim that the law of non-contradiction is true in all possible situations! Christ. You literally just said you understood. You don't. I think it is contingently true, not necessarily true.

And stop - stop - squiggling and squoggling. I haven't the faintest idea what they mean. Box wiggle triangle. It's mental.

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. — Banno

It's question begging (and has other faults beside).

You need to show that my claim - that no true proposition is also false - generates a contradiction, due to the fact I have omitted any mention of necessity. Remember: I do not think that any true proposition is also false. And remember that I do not think that is necessarily true, just contingently true. Now, once more, without just assuming that it is necessarily true - which would obviously be question begging - show how I am committed to affirming a contradiction. Without squiggles and squoggles.

No true proposition is also false. I think that's true. I just don't think it is necessarily true. Telling me over and over that most philosophers think it is necessarily true is beside the point. I know. But this philosopher thinks it is just true.
You have previously insisted that my position commits me to affirming an actual contradiction. Yet you have been unable to show this. All you can do is huff and puff and insist, but you can't show it. Show it. And do so using premises I will accept - that is premises that do not presuppose that some truths are necessary. .

I mentioned the tree merely because you seemed to think it was something about minds specifically- and more, my immaterialist conception of them - that was doing the work. No. If time exists, then the things that exist - trees, minds, whatever - exist in time. For they are all either present, future or past.

Now, you don't seem able to focus and can't resist wider epistemological issues not directly relevant to the question. But I am nice, so I will say something about them.

First, I do not believe all rape victims deserve to be raped. I believe that we all deserve to be exposed to the risks of harm that living in ignorance in this world exposes us to. That's different. Why? If you buy a lottery ticket, then you deserve to have a chance of winning. That does not mean that if you win, you deserved to win,or that if you lose, you deserved to lose. The bad things that happen to us are like that. We deserved to be exposed to the risk of them. But it does not follow that the particular harms that befall us were individually deserved. Importantly as well,our job is to treat others as if they are innocent.

That's my view, a view arrived at by rational reflection - a view that simply follows from the fact God exists and the fact that God would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world like this one.

It is not, then, contrary to any rational appearances, or at least not when one realizes that we ourselves are to view others as innocent. It simply conflicts with a widespread assumption - namely that we are born innocent and that the world is consequently an unjust place.

But anyway, if or when appearances conflict, then our faculty of reason appears to be unreliable on that matter, yes?

The view that everything Reason says is true is not a view I have ever expressed. It's not one I hold. It's a view you hear in your head when I say something much subtler. You keep trying to paint a Leonardo with a paintroller. Sheesh.

And I explained why your example failed. You might as well have said 'imagine that time exists and a mind exists, but the mind doesn't exist in the present or the future or the past. Done. Over to you".

As to these broader issues - you'd bring them up no matter what the topic. This thread is about time. I have appealed to rational representations. All arguments do. All philosophical cases for anything do. It's not an eccentricity on my part. My view about the nature of reason is certainly eccentric (though demonstrably true). But to keep asking me to defend it when what I M appealing to is the content of reason and not Reason's nature is just derailing.

That's just you being crude. Once again, let's go through the process. You asked me a question. You asked me how I knew that the law of non-contradiction was true. I explained, citing widespread corroborative rational appearances. You then asked why I trusted reason - which note, was not something I had said. I had not said the I think everything reason says is true....therefore. Nevertheless,i kindly went on to explain why we are default justified in trusting rational appearances and thus can safely conclude that the law of non-contradiction is true.
What you need to do - and this will be difficult - is resist the temptation to think my thoughts with your mental vocabulary. It isn't up to the job.

Oh, andi explained how your head example didn't work. To imagine the head existing and time existing I had to imagine the head existing in time.

Why are you talking about rape victims deserving to be raped? That's not my view (it's your interpretation of my view, not my actual view, which is subtler than you could possibly handle and involves deserving to live in ignorance in a dangerous world with dangerous people), and even if it was, why mention it here? Focus on time.

Loads of questions are stupid, including 'why trust reason?'
I explained why. But again, someone who thinks there are no stupid questions is someone ill equipped to be able to understand the stupidity of the many stupid questions that there are.

Incidentally, i don't think Reason doesn't lie; I have never said that. The point is that one default trusts Reason; that's compatible with finding some of what she says to be dubious.
Note too that you asked me why I think the law of non-contradiction is true. To which my answer was that my reason and virtualy everyone else's represents it to be. Which is damn good evidence, yes?

So, Reason is to be default trusted - indeed, trying to default distrust Reason is a rationally self undermining task.

And the law of non contradiction is true, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Now address the OP and stop driving the discussion into the sands of broader issues in epistemology.

No, regardless of what one ends up concluding Reason is, it is stupid to ask "why trust Reason?"
It's intrinsically stupid, for the reasons I outlined - reasons, of course, that the stupid can't recognize.
This is the well known problem with the stupid. Those who ask stupid questions are the least able to recognize why those questions are stupid. Indeed, a stupid person asking a stupid question will only really be satisfied when they receive a suitably stupid answer.
I'll give it a go then. Why should you trust Reason? Because she's pretty, that's why. Happy?

Squirm squirm squirm. Take a tree then. Describe to me how a tree and time can exist, yet the tree not be present, future or past.

Oh, and your silly attemp failed, for I could only picture a head existing at a time, not one existing but at no time.

You have asked what, by your own admission, is a stupid question - why is reason trustworthy?
Why did you do that? We all have stupid thoughts. The key is to keep them in your mind and not blurt them out. That's the value of recognizing they're stupid, stupid.
Anyway, either you think there's a reason to think reason is not trustworthy- in which case you trust her about that at least (which is irrational as of all the things an untrustworthy person might say, they are unlikely to tell you they are not trustworthy!) - or you think there is no reason not to trust reason,in which case you trust her.

Note too, that I trusted reason 'before' I came to the conclusion she was a mind, for that was how I arrived at it: I listened and trusted what I was told.

I don't believe you. I believe you thought it was true.

You have the burden of proof. Why? Because one has the burden of proof when what one is claiming is contrary to the appearances.

Now, once more, describe to me how a mind and time can exist, yet the mind not be present, future or past. That is to say, generate that appearance. You are unable to, yes? Thus, I am right and you are wrong. If time exists - and it appears to and thus we are justified in believing it to - then all minds that exist are subject to it, including God's. Got it?

So do you now accept that the youtube mantra is false?

Ah yes, the old 'the one who asserts something has the burden of proof'thing - the mantra of the youtube educated.
As you have asserted that the one who asserts something has the burden of proof, will you discharge that burden in respect of that assertion please. Do that before we move on

To the first bit: burden of proof is on you. Explain how time can exist and a mind can exist yet that mind not exist either in the present, past or future.

To the second bit, I am so sure because my reason, like the reason of most others, tells me that no true proposition is also false. As with Aristotle, it tells me that a true proposition 'cannot' also be false, much as john McEnroe used to say you cannot be serious!?!". Of course, McEnroe did not mean that it is metaphysically impossible for the umpire to be serious. And likewise, when Reason tells us that a true proposition 'cannot' also be false, she is not saying that it is metaphysically impossible for it also to be false, but expressing the strength of her feeling on the matter.

They. Exhaust. The. Possibilities. If you think time exists, but that some minds exist that are neither present, past or future then it's you who has some explaining to do.

And yes, I think it is possible - metaphysically possible - for there to be true contradictions. But I believe there are none. If a proposition is true, it is not also false.

And to the last bit, yes, she could do all that. But as a philosopher I am interested in what is actually the case, which one finds out by listening to what reason actually says, not what reason could say (the latter being anything at all). Understand yet?

I think there are no true contradictions. Why do you people have such difficulty grasping this? I will reject as false any contradictory proposition.

I have never argued that minds are not bodies because we can say 'I have a body'. Quote me. Remember what Russell said: "never trust a stupid man's report of what a clever man has said".

no 4.

Once more: if time exists, then an existent mind is either past, present or future. Those exhaust the possibilities. (And a plausible analysis of time would need to show how they do so - as mine does - not deny that they do).

You don't know what a circular argument is. Like most of the bozos on this forum, you mistake validity for circularity.