Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

The reason I assumed this was basically just using the PSR is because this looks exactly like other theistic arguments from contingency. But as you admit P2 assumes the PSR, you have to answer the challenges to it, otherwise the argument is unsound.

the PSR seems rather self evident to me, the relationship of cause and effect. but since you support Hume's view on the subject, I might as well tackle his argument. to be honest, I really don't think Hume is a good philosopher. he accepts the PSR only to attack it.

once we admit that some contingent state of affairs have no explanations, a completely new skeptical scenario becomes possible: there is no demon deceiving you, but your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all. thus we cannot even say that violations of the PSR are even probable if the PSR is false.

if the PSR is false, then we would have to accept the possibility of literally anything happening with no cause. but anyways, lets look at Hume's argument. he argues that the claims of cause and effect are distinct and separate and thus we can clearly conceive an object without a cause. the problem here is this doesn't show what he thinks it does. the problem is he is not following the consequences of his argument. he can conceive of an object and as long as that object isn't logically absurd (like a round cube or something) then it can exist conceptually. but in order for it to exist physically, other factors come into play. the statement "an object can exist without cause" is equivalent to "an object can exist with no cause" which is equivalent to "an object can exist because of nothing." to say that nothing caused something is logically absurd. just about everything that exists has a possibility of not existing. when we have multiple possibilities, there is always a reason as to why one of them is actualized because if there is no reason then we can't say how the other is actualized. if energy exists for no reason, then we can't say how it could possibly not exist even though we should since it's contingent. it's like saying __+5=X and the blank is nothing (and no, I don't mean zero).
I think I've dragged this out long enough, but the existence of truth is evident, and there must be a reason for something to be true.

If I ask why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact connected with it. but as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at least terminate in some fact, which is present in your memory or senses; or allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.
-An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

even Hume thought something must have a reason to be true. a contingent fact without explanation is "entirely without foundation."

Which means your argument is a circular argument and thus is invalid and unsound. If you say thay by reality you mean "physical, contingent reality" (how you can arbitrarily divide reality like that I'll never know), you necessarily assume there is something transcendent in one of your premises, meaning you're assuming what you're supposed to be concluding.

I say physical reality because we can acknowledge the existence of conceptions, but consider a difference between conception and reality. that's why I define it as physical reality, because conceptions aren't usually considered a part of reality. and no, i'm not assuming what i'm concluding. in P1, it says that there are only 2 possibilities as to why something is true. if you can find an alternate to prove this premise wrong, be my guest. in P2, it says there can't be an infinite regress of contingencies which makes it an eliminating premise. it also implies the existence of necessary propositions (by process of elimination) which is pointed out in C1. none of the premises assume it's transcendent, but rather list the possibilities and deduce from there.

Er, that's exactly what I said. What you're referring to is what is known as the Correspondence theory of truth, which is exactly what I brought up.

Er, no. there's a fundamental difference between the correspondence theory of truth and what i'm saying. and the key point you seemed to miss in my explanation was "which is separate from the perception of reality." i'm using an objective definition of truth which is separate from the perception. according to the correspondence theory of truth, truth is what we can find correspondent to nature which is contingent upon us finding that correspondent; which is why you're having a problem with my conclusion of necessary transcendent truths. my definition is truth doesn't change, only our perception of it does. when Einstein discovered special relativity, he didn't change the truth, he just discovered we were wrong. no one says they discovered the truth was wrong, that would be absurd. they say they discovered they were wrong.

Which is entirely wrong and a confused view. You didn't even argue for why these are "transcendent" truths, you're just asserting they are.

you're right, because that's not what I was arguing for. I was only arguing for the existence of necessary transcendent truths. if I were to argue these are necessary transcendent truths, I would add these 2 premises:
P4: logic is a tool we can use to determine truth.
C3: therefore fundamental laws of logic are necessary truths that transcend reality. (C2, P4)
Conclusion: necessary transcendent truths exist in the fundamentals of logic.

It's actually not an argument. Rathet, it's a demonstration that everything I say or think necessarily presupposes my existence as a thing that thinks. The fact that I think is an incorrigible truth, and thus cannot be false. The rest follows necessarily.

yes, it is an incorrigible truth but not a necessary one. it is possible for us not to exist, and at one point we know we didn't. in order for something to be a necessary truth, it must be impossible to be false. that statement "I doubt" is contingent upon your existence which is also contingent. though the fact that you doubt is self evident which entails your existence tells you it's true, but it's still possible to be false.

Er, are you denying that our existence and language is part of reality? I didn't say they're (the laws) rooted in reality, other than in our language and thought, hence why they're called the laws of thought.

don't play games, you can't take back what you said.

They're very much rooted in reality and the reality we experience.

you made a very clear distinction between reality and the reality we experience implying these laws apply apart from our experience which is also apart from language and thought.

They attest themselves to be true, because language necessitates such before any communication, thought and/or symbology can get off the ground.

if that's possible then answer me this. is it possible for a rock to be both spherical and flat if we don't exist? is it possible for an apple to be an orange at the same time in the same sense if we don't exist? is it possible for something to neither exist or not exist? they are necessary for language, but they are also necessary for nature since we can't find any of these to be true either by experience or intuition.

They are both necessarily true, yet contingent on minds because truth only exists of there are minds in the first place.

you really need to learn the difference between an entailment and a necessity. an entailment is when you have a necessary outcome of a given event. a necessity is when it is impossible for something to be false. if logic is contingent upon minds, it's not necessary. contingent and necessary are contradictory.