Necessary Truths Exist

[downbeatplumb]

a necessary truth is a truth that is true no matter what. it is impossible to be false. by that it could be viewed as a self proclaiming proposition to be true, but this is only because of what it can't be by its definition. necessary is a type of possible which is contrary to contingent. impossible is also contrary to possible. a necessary truth can't be contingent or impossible (a truth can't even be impossible).

There are always alternative possible explanations, always.
Which is why the Spaghetti Monster concept works so well, it explains all the things christianity does and has exactly the same level of proof for it i.e. none.

[henryp]

Objections:
2. truth doesn't really exist-- this is a self refuting position. if you claim "truth doesn't exist" then you can't say that statement is true. a principle is not above its own criteria, if truth doesn't exist then you can't say it's true that truth doesn't exist because that would be an apparent contradiction.

I recently read something that tried to slip this same logic in there.

The ole, The only rule is there are no rules!! paradox.

But you switch it to "There is only one rule." and it works fine. (the one rule being that there is only one rule)

Because what's really being talked about is defining a subset of 'truths' not all truth.

[Rational AKD]

Don't confuse necessary truths with objective truths.

the definition I use for necessary is the modal definition: not possible to be false. by this definition, it would also be objective because it would be true regardless of our opinions.

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.

in order for something to be true what it must be contingent upon a factor that is true or be necessarily true. if it is contingent upon a false factor, then it would be false not true.

False dichotomy - depending upon the theory of truth, there are other options available. For example, those fundamental propositions are neither true, nor false.

a proposition by its very definition must be either true or false. what you suggest is logically absurd.

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.

to say proposition "reality exists" is neither true or false is logically absurd. what you suggest violates the fundamental law of logic, the law of excluded middle.

Er, what? You seem to be merely affirming what I was arguing against, without stating why? My point was is that to say that there is a reason that things don't pop into existence is a fine example of question-begging. The underlying assumption is that what prevents this popping into existence is the PSR. That's circular.

the point I was making is that the fact we don't see anything pop into existence for no reason is evidence against it. it may not mean we have absolute certainty, but it's still more reason for the PSR than against it.

And this is among the places Hume's critique is devastating. You're assuming the universal validity of "things don't come from nothing" based on your experience. But it is in fact the case that there is no logical contradiction in saying "something came from nothing".

again, you don't see I made that statement as a case of evidence for the PSR, not absolute establishment. and I also find it funny before you claimed "something coming from nothing" is a false description of Hume's critique, but now it seems you've embraced it.

And there's a problem. You're again assuming the PSR is the reason things don't happen without sufficient reason, which is question-begging.

no, you have it backwards. i'm saying the fact we don't see anything exist without cause is evidence or reason for the PSR, not the other way around. it's not question-begging.

Firstly, to conceive of something is to already conceive of it as existing. You can't add existence to something, it isn't a property. If I'm thinking of the properties of an apple, then think of the apple as existing, have I actually added anything? No.

is that so? if that's the case, existence would be a necessary attribute of all conceptions. tell me, is it necessary for all conceptions to exist? if not, then it is not a necessary attribute of conceptions. and also, there's a difference between physical existence and conceptual existence. I would say conceptual existence is necessary for conceptions, but physical existence is not. therefore to add physical existence to a conception without reason is logically absurd since it is not necessary for a conception to physically exist.

I recently read something that tried to slip this same logic in there.

The ole, The only rule is there are no rules!! paradox.

But you switch it to "There is only one rule." and it works fine. (the one rule being that there is only one rule)

Because what's really being talked about is defining a subset of 'truths' not all truth.

the problem is doing such would be special pleading. you would claim "the only truth is there is no truth" you are arbitrarily making the claim above its own criteria. you would also be begging the question. I imagine the conversation going like this "your logic is flawed because the only truth is that there is no truth" and of course you would be assuming exactly what you are trying to prove giving no reasons for it.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

to say proposition "reality exists" is neither true or false is logically absurd. what you suggest violates the fundamental law of logic, the law of excluded middle.

I think what he's saying is that reality is neither true nor false, it just is. A table isn't true or false, but the the statement "this is a table" is either true or false. Truth is an accurate description of reality, not reality itself.

[Rational AKD]

I think what he's saying is that reality is neither true nor false, it just is. A table isn't true or false, but the the statement "this is a table" is either true or false. Truth is an accurate description of reality, not reality itself.

to say "reality just is" is meaningless. is what? unless you have something to say of reality, you aren't saying anything. at the very least you could say "reality is reality" then we could come to an agreement or at least an understanding of what you're saying. so even if that's what he meant to say he has no valid point.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I think what he's saying is that reality is neither true nor false, it just is. A table isn't true or false, but the the statement "this is a table" is either true or false. Truth is an accurate description of reality, not reality itself.

to say "reality just is" is meaningless. is what? unless you have something to say of reality, you aren't saying anything. at the very least you could say "reality is reality" then we could come to an agreement or at least an understanding of what you're saying. so even if that's what he meant to say he has no valid point.

Yes, I meant that reality is real. It is the descriptions of reality that are either true or false, based on whether or not they are accurate.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If a truth 'transcends reality' then it is, by definition, an unreal truth. I'm not sure of either the validity or the utility of an unreal truth.

Boru

[henryp]

the problem is doing such would be special pleading. you would claim "the only truth is there is no truth" you are arbitrarily making the claim above its own criteria. you would also be begging the question. I imagine the conversation going like this "your logic is flawed because the only truth is that there is no truth" and of course you would be assuming exactly what you are trying to prove giving no reasons for it.

It's only a contradiction if they are in the same subset.

If the set of all rules contains a rule saying there are no rules in the subset[x], that is not a contradiction
vs.
a rule in subset[x] that says there are no rules in subset[x] is a contradiction

I'm not trying to prove anything other than it's not a contradiction as you claimed. It's just clever word play.

I could be misinterpreting things though. Are the people you're looking to disagree with trying to say there are no truths at all? Like 1+1 equaling 2 isn't a truth? If that's the case, I rescind my complaints, and would like to join in the calling of those people silly.

[genkaus]

[Rational AKD]