Malebranche

Rationalism | Gilsonian-Feserian Thomism | Avicennianism | Ḥikma | Moderate Verificationism | Humean Inductivism

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

.. @al_Sadrai @ByzCat @BrianHuffling @BessyNic @gianlucadiddio @LucasGageX @ForrestLord @waldenpod

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

Any distinction in necessary existence is logically contradictory. See the newest publication.

https://t.co/djHVvD5Hoq

@DeThomist @TDisputations @theRTMullins @Thomisticae @WalmartThomist @analyticatheism @CounterApologis @RealAtheology @majestyofreason @brethrenfpurity …

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@DrScotMSullivan Anyone denying substance dualism would deny P1.

[Open Source Intel @Osint613]

WILD: Cenk’s chair breaks while on Piers oragn show

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind .. claims by claiming some events have explanations others don’t.

Read Feser and Della Rocca on the PSR. Either no facts have explanations, all fact have explanations or some do. The later is what brute fact theorists claim. You agree to that by positing it’s not nec true.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind But that’s backwards and erroneous for the reason I stated. Induction cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusions, and thus cannot prove a guaranteed conclusion. You cannot have the PSR or God being happenstantially true. Since that’s literally what the brute fact theorist …

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind I’m speaking of the conclusion they’re trying to conclude to being true, and showing that the evidence they employ principally cannot prove that, because the evidence can be false and fail to distinguish that from its contradictory, which is a contradictory
with nec truth

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind The proposition can be false is formulate from your epistemic vantage point. You don’t know what the case is beyond what you know, that definitionally true. Hence your misunderstanding of my original argument .

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind A proof for a conclusion discriminates the conclusion from its negation. By definition. What can possibly be false (all induction) is the opposite of what can impossibly be false. So it’s contradictory to prove necessary truths through inductive arguments.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind And a necessary truth means cannot be false. If the argument cannot principally reach “cannot be false,” then the negation stands and was not excluded. You definitionally therefore did not establish the conclusion you’re claiming you did since the evidence reaches the opposite.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind …And the PSR, if demonstrated by something that can possibly be false, fails to establish and cannot be used for proving what cannot possible be false, since it can be false to the same extent the evidence that distinguishes it from falsehood can be.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind …try to tether the truth of the principle to the truth of inductive conclusions. But all such conclusions can possibly be false, and hence cannot establish a God which cannot possible be false. The method of proof will principally allude the conclusion they’re trying to reach...

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@limitandmind Do you know why the PSR is even so controversial? What caused this issue in the first place? This will explain why the above argument is pathetic.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@VenetianGaucho2 @Bathos_8 I explained how your assessment presupposes the reification I’m proving is not being had. Something is simply not its own negation. And the negation of a thing includes what is contradictory to it. :)

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

Actuality and Potentially Are First Order Predicates:

1. Every subject must be differentiated from nothingness. (Definition of subject)
2. Whatever is actually differentiated from nothingness is actual. (Definition of actuality)
3. Whatever is not actually but can be ….

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@VenetianGaucho2 @Bathos_8 Your answers deny the LI and LNC. It will convince anyone who believes in LI and LNC.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@VenetianGaucho2 @Bathos_8 So then something cannot be stated to be not contradictory? Thats now an LNC Violation. You’re absurdly presuming contradiction must be something to be different from something. That’s what is contradictory per se, since something is not its own negation.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@VenetianGaucho2 @Bathos_8 You sound like this argument just broke your worldview. Good, and it should. Because you cannot claim something is not its own negation, if its own negation is inconsistent. Lol. If something is meaningful then it’s NOT meaningless. You cannot claim this. Back to LI violation

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@VenetianGaucho2 @Bathos_8 Even though ~X standing alone is actually incoherent. Why? Because something coherent is NOT something incoherent. lol. Absurdist.

[Malebranche @NichMalebranche]

@VenetianGaucho2 @Bathos_8 The reification is coming from you thinking you must be something to be distinguished from another. Brute and pure ~X with nothing else true of it, is distinct from X by the LI and LNC.