hi everyone. first, I would like to apologize for my absence; I've had quite a lot of things to do lately. but here I would like to post something new. it is an argument of my own design, and rather than a religious argument it's purely philosophical.
Purpose: to establish the existence of necessary truths debunking the notion "there is no objective truth." there are many philosophers who subscribe to a view of logical factionalism, which this argument can also debunk assuming logic is a tool for finding truth.
Argument:
P1: in order for a proposition to be true, it must be true because it is contingent upon a factor or it’s necessary in its own truth.
P2: there must exist fundamental propositions that can’t be true by a contingent factor (there can’t be an infinite amount of propositions all contingent upon the former).
C1: therefore there are fundamental propositions that can only be true by the necessity of their own truth (P1, P2)
P3: if a proposition is necessarily true, then it is not contingent upon reality
C2: therefore there are necessary truths that transcend reality (C1, P3)
Conclusion: necessary transcendent truths exist.
Assumptions: surprisingly the number of presuppositions of this argument is low. the only things it presupposes is the existence of truth and that we are capable of knowing some of these truths. this means the only way to deny the argument is to deny logic itself.
Objections:
1. P2 is wrong there can be an infinite number of propositions all contingent upon eachother-- this is false. when a proposition's truth value is contingent, it means it's passing its credit of truth to something else. to have no necessarily true proposition at any point in this chain is like having a limited number of propositions reasoned to be true by a circle of contingency. you can't reason the circle itself to be true and you can't reason an infinite cycle to be true. there must be something that is necessarily true if there is anything that is true.
2. truth doesn't really exist-- this is a self refuting position. if you claim "truth doesn't exist" then you can't say that statement is true. a principle is not above its own criteria, if truth doesn't exist then you can't say it's true that truth doesn't exist because that would be an apparent contradiction.
3. you can't know what is true and what is false-- like the last, this is easily refuted. if you can't know what's true or false then you can't know that statement to be true. the sad part is you can't say this statement is true even if you presuppose it in the first place. forget trying to substantiate it, you can't even say it's true.
Purpose: to establish the existence of necessary truths debunking the notion "there is no objective truth." there are many philosophers who subscribe to a view of logical factionalism, which this argument can also debunk assuming logic is a tool for finding truth.
Argument:
P1: in order for a proposition to be true, it must be true because it is contingent upon a factor or it’s necessary in its own truth.
P2: there must exist fundamental propositions that can’t be true by a contingent factor (there can’t be an infinite amount of propositions all contingent upon the former).
C1: therefore there are fundamental propositions that can only be true by the necessity of their own truth (P1, P2)
P3: if a proposition is necessarily true, then it is not contingent upon reality
C2: therefore there are necessary truths that transcend reality (C1, P3)
Conclusion: necessary transcendent truths exist.
Assumptions: surprisingly the number of presuppositions of this argument is low. the only things it presupposes is the existence of truth and that we are capable of knowing some of these truths. this means the only way to deny the argument is to deny logic itself.
Objections:
1. P2 is wrong there can be an infinite number of propositions all contingent upon eachother-- this is false. when a proposition's truth value is contingent, it means it's passing its credit of truth to something else. to have no necessarily true proposition at any point in this chain is like having a limited number of propositions reasoned to be true by a circle of contingency. you can't reason the circle itself to be true and you can't reason an infinite cycle to be true. there must be something that is necessarily true if there is anything that is true.
2. truth doesn't really exist-- this is a self refuting position. if you claim "truth doesn't exist" then you can't say that statement is true. a principle is not above its own criteria, if truth doesn't exist then you can't say it's true that truth doesn't exist because that would be an apparent contradiction.
3. you can't know what is true and what is false-- like the last, this is easily refuted. if you can't know what's true or false then you can't know that statement to be true. the sad part is you can't say this statement is true even if you presuppose it in the first place. forget trying to substantiate it, you can't even say it's true.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
