The shortest proof for the existence of an uncaused cause using deductive arguments only

[IWantGod]

Truth isn’t an abstraction.

Explain please.

It isn’t a property of the natural world.

You mean that truth isn’t a physical property. I don’t see the relevance of this claim

You can’t find truth in the world, like you can find chairness, or blueness

It’s not the same thing, but we can certainly determine what is possible and impossible for reality, and that begins with our understanding of reality. Without reality, truth is meaningless. It’s nothing at all.

A possible world with an empty ontology can still be rationally and logically discussed.

But this is not absolutely nothing, it is something that is empty.

 

[IWantGod]

If truth has no existence apart from reality, then how did the truth about the nature of our reality exist before our reality existed?

If there was absolutely nothing before physical reality existed, and physical reality is what determines that which is necessarily true, then there was no truth before physical reality existed, which is absurd, and that’s why a necessary uncaused cause must exist. Absolutely nothing cannot be possible.

 

[Rhubarb]

Yes, truth isn’t a physical property. It doesn’t exist in the ontology of the world. So a possible world doesn’t need stuff in it for 1+1=2 to be true. The truth value of that statement is Independent of the external world. Or lack thereof.

A possible world with an empty ontology isn’t “something with nothing in it”. It’s just nothing. If there was an empty something, then that something would be included in the set of things in that possible world’s ontology.

You’re right that if there was nothing, nobody would be able to determine what the truth value of anything is. But that doesn’t mean analytic a priori truths wouldn’t still be true. Those sort of statements are true regardless of the outside world. And it’s wrong to say that an empty possible would would mean truth is meaningless - something being true or false woolukd still have meaning. The semantics hasn’t changed.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes, truth isn’t a physical property. It doesn’t exist in the ontology of the world. So a possible world doesn’t need stuff in it for 1+1=2 to be true.

But there does need to be an ontology, otherwise the very concept of truth is nonsense.

A possible world with an empty ontology isn’t “something with nothing in it”. It’s just nothing.

Wrong. Absolutely nothing is the absence of any possible reality or world. It’s meaningless to speak of a world that is nothing at all. It’s the absence of everything, including any possibility for there to be anything…

 

[Rhubarb]

There is an ontology of a possible world with nothing - it’s just an empty set. That’s the ontology.

Yes, absolutely nothing is the absence of anything. But it’s still a possible world. The empty set is still a set.

And you’re right, a world with nothing at all is the absence of anything. That doesn’t make it meaningless to talk about. We’re discussing it just fine and I we understand what we mean. So it’s not meaningless.

Again. We don’t need things for 1+1=2 to be true.

 

[IWantGod]

And you’re right, a world with nothing at all is the absence of anything.

That’s a contradiction. A world is real by defintion, otherwise it is meaningless to speak of one.

 

[Rhubarb]

People have been using counterfactuals for centuries. And possible worlds for decades.

A “world” is a term that just means a state of affairs. A possible world with nothing in its ontology, that has nothing with being in it, is still perfectly discussable and able to be analyzed.

 

[IWantGod]

A “world” is a term that just means a state of affairs.

Absolutely nothing is the absence of any state whatsoever. It’s meaningless to say there can be a world that is not real.

 

[Rhubarb]

What you’re describing is “no possible world”. Not a possible world with an empty ontology.