Necessary Truths Exist

[genkaus]

by the very nature of an impossible world, nothing is true or exists in an impossible world. you claim it a contingency yet the only alternative you give is an incoherent one.

I thought my meaning was clear - the contingency here is what you regard as a possible world, i.e. a world where modal logic is applicable.

Regardless, the incoherency of the alternative does not negate the contingency of your statement.

and as I've stated before, the existence of all things can be expressed in propositions. the two are as equivocal as a word and its definition.

But not all propositions are expressions of existence. Which is why the two are not equivocal.

if facts aren't necessarily true, then they are contingently true. the argument still applies, they can't be contingently true based on an infinite chain of contingent truths; but there must be a necessary truth(s) that they are all ultimately contingent upon.

False dichotomy - the measure of true or false can be applied to propositions, for which facts do not qualify. As such, facts are neither necessarily true, nor contingently true, they just are.

that doesn't explain anything of the truth of reality itself, why some things are true of reality and some things aren't. if the facts of reality are contingent, then it can still be fit into the argument.

Once again, those "things" which are true or not happen to be propositions about reality. And their truth is determined by their correspondence to reality.

really? does the sun exist without us? no? is it there by the necessity of it's own nature? no? then it is contingently there, and that's probably because of another contingent factor. but those contingent factors need to end somewhere, they can't go on forever.

Again - false dichotomy. Sun's existence itself is not a proposition, therefore the concept of necessity or contingency does not apply here.

as I've told you, that's a change in reference due to your own ignorance of the reference. if you read a book written in 1985 claiming that the current president of the US is Reagan, would you claim the author wrong? no, because you know the reference. people don't say general things to make statements that change. they do so to be brief but still convey the message. if I tell you who the current president is, you know exactly what time i'm referring to. quit pretending there is no reference or context in those statements, you're just being dishonest.

Given that the reference is not an inherent aspect of the fact, any fact stated without such a reference in subject to change.