(October 31, 2013 at 6:03 am)Rational AKD Wrote: Purpose: to establish the existence of necessary truths debunking the notion "there is no objective truth."
Don't confuse necessary truths with objective truths.
(October 31, 2013 at 6:03 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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.
This says nothing about the factor it is contingent upon. Even if the truth of a statement is contingent upon a factor, that does not mean the factor itself would have a truth value.
(October 31, 2013 at 6:03 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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).
False dichotomy - depending upon the theory of truth, there are other options available. For example, those fundamental propositions are neither true, nor false.
(October 31, 2013 at 6:03 am)Rational AKD Wrote: C1: therefore there are fundamental propositions that can only be true by the necessity of their own truth (P1, P2)
Wrong - for reasons given.
(October 31, 2013 at 6:03 am)Rational AKD Wrote: P3: if a proposition is necessarily true, then it is not contingent upon reality
Wrong. If I define truth itself to be contingent on reality, then 1) the concept of necessary truth would become meaningless, 2) reality itself would be neither true, nor false 3) the truth of any other proposition would remain contingent on reality.
(October 31, 2013 at 6:03 am)Rational AKD Wrote: C2: therefore there are necessary truths that transcend reality (C1, P3)
Conclusion: necessary transcendent truths exist.
Wrong.
