Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

Talking about what the world has is talking about the world itself. Existing within the real world automatically makes it continent on reality.

no it's not. I can talk about a single thing the world has independent of other things it has. what I am saying is something that is necessary is not contingent upon anything the world has apart from itself. so what exactly is your point? a necessarily existing truth is contingent upon its own existence? well duh. tautology 101.

The proposition "Obama is president of US" is contingent upon the fact of whether or not at a given time, Obama is the president - the latter being a concrete event would be a non-proposition.

you realize all you did is take a proposition and reformulated it into a fact which is equivalent to the proposition you stated. you haven't proved anything.

Did you miss the other part about concrete events? Try reading it through the next time.

concrete events can be formed into propositions, however. the fact that there was a point in time that Obama became president can be shared in the manner "Obama became the president of the US in 2008" which would be a proposition. concrete facts and events can't be false themselves (being that if it's concrete it's true by definition) but can be communicated as propositions and in fact can only be communicated as propositions. and those propositions are equivalent in meaning of content to the concrete events themselves (the same as how a word is equivalent to its respective definition).

Actually, I hear it all the time - "The truth was this but now it has changed". This indicates that the truth of a statement is contingent upon the facts of reality and as the facts change, so does the truth.

maybe you should look up the definition of fact now.

something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

if an event A truly happened, then there is no fact that can change the fact that A happened. if A has actual existence, then A has actual existence regardless of what we think of A. you are equivocating fact and perceived fact. there is a difference between perception and reality.

Is your argument saying that there needs to be at least one "first" truth, which is independently true of other factors, that other truths would then be contingent on?

a first truth or truths, yes. that's what I'm saying.

Well, we could use the above example is this to.

The statement "Obama is the president of the US"

Right now that statement is the truth.
4 years from now that statement will not be the truth.

Isn't wasn't that I thought it was the truth but I was wrong, in this case the truth did change.

temporal truths don't quite work that way. when speaking of a truth in relation to time, the time must be specified in the same way when speaking of your location displacement must be specified. so it's not that the truth changes overtime, it's that events occur over time and those events must be specified in time in order to be considered truth.