Open call for Presups

[Sanoy]

I don't find the maximally great idea very compelling but that is a discussion for another thread
I'm not sure how the presup argument runs myself, hence this thread, but I have enjoyed discussing it with you
Peace

Yeah, it's kind of like being promised a road trip, then getting in the car and before the car starts the driver says were here!. It's dissatisfying.

I have too.

 

[Athée]

True.
.

Ok, so we just assume them...if we assume them on your worldview, how do you account for them? You really haven't elaborated on how we have these abstract conceptual laws in your view.

Why does there seem to be logic in nothing reality?

My account of the LoL is that they necessarily obtain in any possible reality and therefore we are not surprised that they work here as well.
As for the nothing reality, let's do a two step version.
1. Imagine a reality that consists of a single rock. In such a reality, although nobody is there to think the thoughts, it would still be the case that the rock could not he a rock and a tree at the same time, correct?

2. Now take the rock away, now there is absolute nothing, in this reality the nothing cant both ne nothing and also a rock at the same time right?

So even in a nothing reality, with it a God, the LoL still seem to describe that reality, therefore they do t need god as a foundation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My account of the LoL is that they necessarily obtain in any possible reality and therefore we are not surprised that they work here as well.
As for the nothing reality, let's do a two step version.

That they are necessary and they work well are not explanations for why they are necessary or why they work well here. In any possible world, which if you will allow me assumption here, you believe the world consists only of physical matter but LOL do not consist of physical matter. So how do you account for transcendental conceptual laws in any possible world?

1. Imagine a reality that consists of a single rock. In such a reality, although nobody is there to think the thoughts, it would still be the case that the rock could not he a rock and a tree at the same time, correct?

Correct, we agree on that. Why is a material world compelled to obey immaterial universal laws?

2. Now take the rock away, now there is absolute nothing, in this reality the nothing cant both ne nothing and also a rock at the same time right?

Why would there be a concept or identity of a rock when absolutely nothing exists? We conceptualize using the LOL that a rock is a rock and not
absolutely nothing, but a mind is necessary to conceptualize such identity. We know that a rock could not be absolutely nothing because the LOL exists to inform us of that truth whether we know about absolute nothingness by experience or not. We agree that these LOL are necessary truths, they are not physical matter, they are true in every possible world so they must exist in every possible world. With this in mind, it stands to reason, if there are necessarily existent thoughts, we must have a necessary existent mind; and if there is a necessary existent mind, there must be a necessary existent person. There is no physical necessary existent person, this person must be metaphysical/spiritual in nature. So if there are LOL, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.

So even in a nothing reality, with it a God, the LoL still seem to describe that reality, therefore they do t need god as a foundation.

This is what I'd like you to you explain. How would God not be necessary or a foundation.