Necessary Truths Exist

[genkaus]

you entirely miss that it would only require a world because of semantics, not necessity. the fact that it exists means it exists in a world, but that doesn't express a contingent relationship. or if it does, it's more like a relationship of a world and at least one thing existing. i'll try to simplify it with this statement-- "a world exists if at least one thing exists." and the fact that I qualified it with "apart from itself" isn't adding anything new since to be necessary is to exist without being contingent on anything external. to say it is contingent upon itself is just playing semantics. in modal logic, necessary is defined as "true in all possible worlds" and that's the definition I subscribed to in the argument.

If we're talking about semantics, then you should realize that your very definition of necessary truth indicates a contingency - "true in all possible worlds" - as opposed to impossible worlds, meaning, where modal logic is applicable. Further, you are equivocation between a necessary truth and existential necessity. The definition "true in all possible worlds" applies to propositions, not things themselves.

but you realize the facts aren't necessarily true in the since they couldn't possibly have happened any other way. for example, Obama is president but it is possible that he would not have become president. thus his presidency is contingent upon the facts leading up to the event to where he became president.

Ofcourse, facts aren't necessarily true - did you miss the part where I'm using them to argue against the existence of necessary truths?

they are still required since the events can only be expressed as propositions and when they are we realize that they aren't necessary themselves. sequences of events can conceivably different, which leads to the problem "why is anything true at all?" unless you're going to take up a position that all events of reality are necessary in the sense they couldn't have possibly been different (which would be an extreme determinist position) then you can't deny the facts aren't necessarily true.

The sequence of events being conceivably different doesn't mean that we need any necessary truths. The problem of "why is anything true at all?" is easily answered by truth being a relation of a proposition to reality - it is in the nature of a proposition to be true or false and without there being a mind to conceive of those propositions, nothing had to be true or false.

give an example of a fact that has changed.

Asked and answered.