So.. I've been listening to some debates where they tackle down apologists, and they looove to start with the ontological arguments, with "truths" and whatnot...
One (of the many maaany) variation of the argument starts by dividing truths in "necessary truths" and "contingent truths", the definition of contingent truth is very simple to get.. simply something that happens to be truth but doesn't necessary has to be this way (such as "this ball is blue".. as it could have been red).
But as for necessary truth.. i'm having a hard time trying to find any difference between what we would call a "definition" and a "necessary truth".. for instance, one classic example is that: "2+2 = 4"... it is a necessary truth, because it happens in all possible worlds (according to apologists).. but I would argue it is truth because we DEFINED rules of arithmetic in a certain way and this is the result of combining the definitions.. in a sense it is a logical necessity because we defined it that way.. it makes sense to logically imply stuff derived from the starting premises and definitions, and get NEW information (theorems, relationships not evident at first sight)
Nevertheless, what these apologists will try to do is to "force" a "necessary truth" to "explain" the Origin of the Universe/Meaning of Life/Ruler of the Universe etc, etc. but it becomes transparent if we think of those "necessary truths" as definitions that pretty much they are fancily and merily DEFINING the unknown cause as a god but not demonstrating ANYTHING at all.
so.. what do you thing.. how would you define a "necessary truth" to differentiate it from "a definition"?
One (of the many maaany) variation of the argument starts by dividing truths in "necessary truths" and "contingent truths", the definition of contingent truth is very simple to get.. simply something that happens to be truth but doesn't necessary has to be this way (such as "this ball is blue".. as it could have been red).
But as for necessary truth.. i'm having a hard time trying to find any difference between what we would call a "definition" and a "necessary truth".. for instance, one classic example is that: "2+2 = 4"... it is a necessary truth, because it happens in all possible worlds (according to apologists).. but I would argue it is truth because we DEFINED rules of arithmetic in a certain way and this is the result of combining the definitions.. in a sense it is a logical necessity because we defined it that way.. it makes sense to logically imply stuff derived from the starting premises and definitions, and get NEW information (theorems, relationships not evident at first sight)
Nevertheless, what these apologists will try to do is to "force" a "necessary truth" to "explain" the Origin of the Universe/Meaning of Life/Ruler of the Universe etc, etc. but it becomes transparent if we think of those "necessary truths" as definitions that pretty much they are fancily and merily DEFINING the unknown cause as a god but not demonstrating ANYTHING at all.
so.. what do you thing.. how would you define a "necessary truth" to differentiate it from "a definition"?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/RbJOLK
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire