Proposition 2)
Does not exist by virtue of what it is
—1/6
Conclusion) By the Law of Non-Contradiction,
Proposition 1 & Proposition 2 cannot both be true (or both false) at the same time and in the same way.
By the Law of the Excluded Middle, there are 3 types of existents:
...
—2/6
...
The first type of existent would be "Necessary", where the first proposition is true and the second proposition is false, as the "Necessary existent" exists by virtue of what it is.
...
—3/6
...
The second type of existent would be "Impossible", where the first proposition is false and the second proposition is true, as the "Impossible existent" does not exist by virtue of what it is.
...
—4/6
...
The third type of existent would be "Possible", where the existent can or can not exist, by virtue of what it is.
By the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Causal Principle, (which together state that everything must have an explanation for its cause of existence)...
—5/6
...the cause of the emergence of a Possible existent must be an extrinsic specifier.
Therefore, their emergence is due to a cause external to itself, as the existent would be "Dependent" or "Contingent", by virtue of what it is.
—6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
given: The Law of Non-Contradiction states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time.
The Law of the Excluded Middle states that a proposition must be either true or false.
—1/5
P1. A proposition that is possibly necessary in some possible world is a proposition that is necessarily true in at least one possible world.
—2/5
P2. If a proposition that is possibly necessary in some possible world is not necessarily true in every possible world,
...
—3/5
given: The Law of Non-Contradiction states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time.
The Law of the Excluded Middle states that a proposition must be either true or false.
—1/6
P1. A proposition is either
arbitrary (being without rational basis as sufficient explanation for being true or false)
or non-arbitrary (being with rational basis as sufficient explanation for being true or false).
—2/6
P2. If a proposition is arbitrary, it would not be logically necessary in any possible world, as it would be with no rational basis for one being affirmed true or false.
...
—3/6
A🧵answering: "Did Christ (being 'fully God and fully human') exist with a human soul, as a human person?"
First, two possible syllogisms demonstrating that the proposition "Christ existed, being fully human, with a human soul as a human person" is either true or false ...
1/23
by the Law of the Excluded Middle, & must result in either Nestorianism or Apollinarianism:
—1st Syllogism (Nestorianism)—
(Major) Premise 1: A human person has a human soul, a human body, a human will, & a human nature.
(Major) Premise 2: Christ was fully God &fully human.
2/23
(Major) Premise 3: The proposition "Christ existed, being fully human, with a human soul as a human person" is either true or false by the Law of the Excluded Middle.
1st Conclusion: The proposition "Christ existed, being fully human, with a human soul as a human person"…
3/23
It never ceases to amaze me that the ignorant will pride themselves on their ignorance & slander scholars to excuse their deviance and innovation.
Stay away from @snakejuce.
Anyone who insults Salafis/Sunnis/Wahhabis, doubt their Islam.
P ¹) If meaning can only be derived from the natural world, then all conceptions of reality are derived from the natural world.
P ²) If all conceptions of reality are derived from the natural world, then they must be a coherence of meaningful experiences.
P ³) People believe that there is a meaningful transcendent reality (i.e. God) that shares no properties with the natural world.
P ⁴) If P ¹ and P ², then P ³ is a conception of reality derived from the natural world, the content of which is a coherence of meaningful experiences.