On Trey Jadlow's Contingency Argument.

A response to this hangout w/Jadlow, Fox in the Know and Floyd Fp.

Trey Jadlow’s contingency argument

Presupposes 2 things – sense perception & rational coherence

P1 – If I know I exist, then I happened to exist
P2 – If I happened to exist, then I was caused to exist
P3 – if I was caused to exist, the only sufficient thing to explain it is something non-contingent &pure actuality.
P4 – I know I exist
C- therefore, then I happened to exist
C2 - then I was caused to exist
C3 - the only sufficient thing to explain it is something non-contingent & pure actuality
C4 – This thing we call God.

Definitions

- Actuality - That which is obtained
- Potency – That which is obtained, can be or can become
- Pure actuality – that which is obtained and has no potency (thus cannot possibly become)
- Contingency - not having its existence by virtue of its own nature
- Necessity - having its existence by virtue of its own nature
- Essence – that which it is
- Existence – that it is
- Ground of Being – that which its essence is its existence
- Cause – to be the reason for another thing

Note

Contingency and Necessity here is different from necessity and contingency/possibility in analytic philosophy. To be necessary in analytic philosophy is to say that it is a logical contradiction to deny its existence. Here, it is to have its existence by virtue of its own nature. Contingency/possibility is to be logically possible.

[keaco]

I feel Trey is headed in the direction and replacement of Sye Ten.  Different word games void of any evidence for their leaps.

[andrewwells]

Maximus Confesses I enjoyed this, even if you didnt :)

[coz]

7:40  "in modal logic something is necessary if it doesn't entail a contradiction"  

I'll try not to be too picky because from implication of either axiom 5, D or B or a combination I can see you could try to argue it backasswards - and because straight after hearing this I had to pause and start typing so I'm not sure yet if you nuanced this correctly ;p
and this 'may' be a nice way to avoid outright saying "nope, wrong ;p" but it 'might' not be as such, iirc..  


"in modal logic something is not necessarily not when it doesn't entail a contradiction or in modal logic something is possible when it does not entail a contradiction"  for it's first axiom  

possible p ↔ not necessarily not p
necessarily p ↔ not possibly not p


or  "in modal logic if x entails a contradiction it's necessarily not x'

I do get where you're coming from necessitation rule, de morgan, S5  yada yada "it is not possible that X"  is logically equivalent to "It is necessary that not X"   - which like some other arguments would rely on true premises first and can't trivially be used to say a distorted inverse {long story} - or putting it around another way that to me seems to include the 'in some possible world not necessarily ours' kind of way 
given ye olde 'well hang on, we know not arbitrarily everything and anything as long as it's non-contradictory automagically has ontology'


or "It is possible that X" is NOT logically equivalent to "It is necessary that X" and while "It is necessarily possible that X"' logically follows from "It is possible that X" (5) i'd say before ax:B s to be taken to any dubious x ; that is; 'it is necessarily possible x' logically follows from EVERY x we'd at least need to be talking about only uncontroversial x in some domain .

[inrealitywetrust]

I like your videos, Do you have any emotion at all?

[godiva]

I think I've been triggered...were you #hatshaming  ?

[jtveg]

Looks and sounds like you didn't get enough sleep that day. 😫