Logic, Therefore God...

[Sparko]

Ok, so God could create an irrational world where cubes are perfectly round?

You are assuming God in your question. I thought the idea was to prove that God had to create this universe? You are putting the cart before the horse.

And "cube" is just a word. If we called round things "cubes" instead of "spheres" then yup.

[Stoic]

This pretty much repeats what I said. Again the law of identity A=A : "There are no possible worlds where the statement is false." And I'm not sure why Quine would call the law of non-contradiction for instance a contingent truth? Contingent on what?

So one could hold that the law of identity does not exist in all possible worlds, because minds do not exist in all possible worlds.

And yet the law of identity is still a necessary truth, because there are no possible worlds where it is false.

[Sparko]

So A=A is a necessary truth?

OK, for argument's sake say that is so. Go on from there to prove the rest of your statements.

Why would it take a mind for A=A to be true? A rock is a rock even if there were no minds to know it was so.

[seer]

You are assuming God in your question. I thought the idea was to prove that God had to create this universe? You are putting the cart before the horse.

And "cube" is just a word. If we called round things "cubes" instead of "spheres" then yup.

Nope, and my point is that it is God that makes necessary truths necessary or with trans-world application. It is not so much an argument for God.

[Sparko]

Nope, and my point is that it is God that makes necessary truths necessary or with trans-world application. It is not so much an argument for God.

Ok How?

Why would a rock not be a rock if this universe were say created naturally like the atheists believe? If it came into being by whatever process they think, it would still be here and whatever was here would still be whatever it is (A=A) instead of something else.

[seer]

OK, for argument's sake say that is so. Go on from there to prove the rest of your statements.

Why would it take a mind for A=A to be true? A rock is a rock even if there were no minds to know it was so.

The law does not exist without a mind, a rock has no identity without a mind. We give it the label - identity. And I would say we could only assume that other worlds would be rational apart from God, but we know they would be with God. Since He is rational by nature...

[seer]

And yet the law of identity is still a necessary truth, because there are no possible worlds where it is false.

How do you know that? Didn't you recently agree with paralogical both/and reasoning?

[Sparko]

The law does not exist without a mind, a rock has no identity without a mind. We give it the label - identity. And I would say we could only assume that other worlds would be rational apart from God, but we know they would be with God. Since He is rational by nature...

The "law" is just a statement representing the reality of the situation. Saying "A=A" is something humans came up with by observing reality. The reality of something being itself existed before anyone thought to codify it into a law. Rocks were rocks long before any philosopher came up with A=A. And they would still be rock even if God didn't create them.

[seer]

The "law" is just a statement representing the reality of the situation. Saying "A=A" is something humans came up with by observing reality. The reality of something being itself existed before anyone thought to codify it into a law. Rocks were rocks long before any philosopher came up with A=A. And they would still be rock even if God didn't create them.

But you just agreed that it was a necessary truth. And I'm saying that necessary truths and a rational universe or other rational worlds makes more sense as a quality or extension of a rational Creator.

[Sparko]

But you just agreed that it was a necessary truth. And I'm saying that necessary truths and a rational universe or other rational worlds makes more sense as a quality or extension of a rational Creator.

1. Necessary truths exist.

2. The law of identity (A=A) is a necessary truth.

3. Necessary truths are true in all possible worlds.

4. Such propositions are mind dependent.

Let's discuss #4. The PROPOSITION requires a mind, but the proposition is just a concept that a mind came up with to DESCRIBE reality. Correct? The idea that A=A requires a mind, but what A=A is describing, that something is what it is, that a rock is a rock and not a tree for example, doesn't require a mind. It is real even if no mind every thought of A=A.

If you disagree, explain how and why it is not so.

[Stoic]

How do you know that? Didn't you recently agree with paralogical both/and reasoning?

I was assuming it for the sake of argument.

My point is that even if there are necessary truths, there are not necessarily minds in all possible worlds.

[seer]

I was assuming it for the sake of argument.

My point is that even if there are necessary truths, there are not necessarily minds in all possible worlds.

Doesn't a necessary truth require a mind?

[Sparko]

Doesn't a necessary truth require a mind?

You seem to be arguing labels. Like saying a rock can't be a rock without a mind labeling it a "rock" - it can still be what we call a rock, it just wouldn't have the English label "rock"

A=A is just a human label for describing that a thing is exactly what that thing is. Even without that law the thing still is what it is, even if nobody had a law to describe it. I think that is where either you are going off the rails or I am misunderstanding your argument.

[seer]

4. Such propositions are mind dependent.

Let's discuss #4. The PROPOSITION requires a mind, but the proposition is just a concept that a mind came up with to DESCRIBE reality. Correct? The idea that A=A requires a mind, but what A=A is describing, that something is what it is, that a rock is a rock and not a tree for example, doesn't require a mind. It is real even if no mind every thought of A=A.

If you disagree, explain how and why it is not so.

But you can't get to a tree equals a tree without a mind to make that judgement. What is making the claim that A=A? You are not just saying - look squirrel, you are going one step further - squirrel = squirrel.

[Sparko]

But you can't get to a tree equals a tree without a mind to make that judgement. What is making the claim that A=A? You are not just saying - look squirrel, you are going one step further - squirrel = squirrel.

But is that tree still a tree even if we weren't here to point it out or understand it, or even call it a tree? It would still exist and it would be exactly what it is. No mind needed.