Turnz vs Cee on Contigency

[@swiftcartier6970]

Is god good by definition? (Was debating a theist the other day, wondering other viewpoints people had on it)

[@rizzthe3rd]

Turnzs analogy on the trinity is flawed as many theologians hold that the trinity is necessarily true, so his analogy is disanalogous

[@darth_mb]

@@rizzthe3rd Yeah but they're wrong and the trinity isn't ttue.

[@rizzthe3rd]

@@darth_mb If the God of Christianity is a necessarily existent being then it follows that the persons are necessary but yeah the trinity is true we can agree to disagree.

[@darth_mb]

@@rizzthe3rd ok yeah let's not agree to disagree, just provide me ur discord so we can chat on it. Also not sure what necessary existent means, sounds like confusion on your behalf 😂

[@a.bsplanet8763]

'The trinity is necessary' would pertain to modal logic, would it not. Turnz argument is basically just asserting that any given proposition P is contingent insofar as it can be false in a row on a truth table which I don't understand where we go from there? What even was his argument at this point?

[@darth_mb]

Was just a basic critique of the fact the trinity isn't necessarily true as it translates to a truth table.

[@marcuskissinger3842]

yes it would pertain to modal logic, insofar as one way to model necessity is through modal logic, so what?

[@iruleandyoudont9]

​@@darth_mb this would only be relevant to the claim that the Trinity is a logical necessity. most people are smart enough not to claim that, idk if Cee claimed that

[@darth_mb]

@@iruleandyoudont9 he did

[@iruleandyoudont9]

and also, if you want to dispute whether some proposition is a logical necessity or not, making this claim about the truth table is basically begging the question. I could take an expression like this say (pV~p), and that expression actually is a logical necessity in classical logic, and I could do the same move and say I'm just going to call that disjunction r, "oh well r is true in one row and false in another so its contingent." that would be wrong. now, obviously "The Trinity exists" is not a logical necessity, but the reason it's obviously not is because if it were, it would be a theorem. if it's a theorem in FOL then there is a proof (FOL is complete). so if there's a proof that means you could give a purely symbolic derivation, and good luck getting the semantic content. also there would be a way to prove it indirectly by deriving a contradiction from the negation, also purely symbolically. anyone claiming something is logically necessary without even providing the symbolic expression for the claim, let alone the proof, is just talking out of their ass.

[@Transentience]

Applause for uploading a video of atheists getting logically curb stomped. "I wrote it down a truth table that P isn't logically necessary, therefore P isn't true in all worlds".

[@darth_mb]

@@Transentience ur a dumbas. Any atomic proposition is trivially not logically necessary. Signing off the trinity to be written as a atomic proposition trivially follows its not necessary under logical modality, curb stomp or curb stomping ur own image? Theres only a couple of WFFs that are logically necessary, here are the main: P = P P ∨ ~P (or represented as P ⊕ ~P) ~(P & ~P) This is logic 101

[@darth_mb]

@@Transentience literally if something is logically necessary it's true ever row the an logical tableaux because it's fundamental and directly deducable from the logic scheme, this includes axioms/laws or principles. The trinity is true at some instance of a truth table given u can't infer it from the axioms of logic nor identical to them. Ofc trivially no atomic proposition is logically necessary 🤣

[@Transentience]

@@darth_mb Logically necessary WFFs can be a column in a truth table, so whatever is represented in the truth table isn't automatically not logically necessary. Cee sounded as if he was undecided whether it is an atomic proposition.

[@darth_mb]

@@Transentience You can represent a WFF in a matrix tableaux, but the point is atomic propositions aren't logically necessary. When Cee sounded undecided doesn't matter bc he did sign-off, how did Turnz get "curb-stomped", Cee didn't even raise a critique. Are you saying he was just wrong bc he's not even losing to his interlocutor. But if u think he was wrong I can set up a debate with u and him. Obviously the trinity isn't logically necessary if you're not a moron.

[@Transentience]

@@darth_mb I think you have a misunderstanding about this. Simply because P is an atomic proposition shouldn't mean it must be logically contingent. If you look up the Propositional Logic PDF by California State University, on page 8 it says: "1. tautology iff p always evaluates to true, regardless of how its variables are assigned. 2. fallacy iff p always evaluates to false, regardless of how its variables are assigned. 3. contingency iff p’s variables may be assigned in a way that makes p evaluate to true, and may be assigned in another way that makes p evaluate to false" i.e., P can be a tautology, it's not necessarily contingent, just because it is a P. The question is how P is evaluated, dependently on what P means / is stated by P. The purpose of having truth tables in which P has columns in which it is T and others in which it is F is to show what truth values the molecular propositions have on each row / under each set of conditions. It doesn't mean that all atomic propositions have contingency. Whether or not it is contingent/a tautology/a fallacy depends on what statement P actually is.