(December 5, 2013 at 9:15 am)Rational AKD Wrote: \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.
Read your own argument - it defeats your point. You can talk about something the world has as independent from the other things the world has, but not independent from the world itself. The fact that you've had to keep adding the qualifier "apart from itself" proves it. So, the point is, a necessary truth existing is contingent upon the existence of reality.
(December 5, 2013 at 9:15 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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.
No, I start with a fact (not a proposition) and formulated a proposition from it. Thus proving that a proposition can be contingent upon non-propositions.
(December 5, 2013 at 9:15 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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).
Good. So you understand the argument then. We have propositions that are contingent upon non-propositions and that is where their truth-value comes form. Necessarily true propositions are not required.
(December 5, 2013 at 9:15 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 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.
I didn't get into perception to begin with. What we are talking about is the truth of the proposition contingent on facts - not the nature of facts themselves. And given the mutable nature of reality, facts change.
