If nothing existed, would it be true that nothing exists? Why or why not?The food for thought is that if nothing existed, how can a proposition BE true? Furthermore, if nothing existed, would, then, nothing be true and nothing be false? But this is incoherent, forsooth, how can something be anything if nothing is?
>>24773651nothing can't exist, which is why the universe is eternal
>>24773651just ask chatgpt for the answer
God philosophy is annoying
>>24773668Only God is eternal. Study philosophy, physics, and theology, or perish.
>>24773674>Godwhich one
>>24773679You're on the right track. I promise you that it is obvious which one is true, just be impartial when weighing the evidence. Hint: You can off-hand dismiss religions with an impersonal God, no I will not elaborate. Good luck.
>>24773651Truth is being qua intelligible. God is necessary and the measure of truth is the Logos.
>>24773651Being is convertible with truth, because being is and non-being is not, thus anything that is, has truth insofar as it is true that it exists, and all things that can be said to be true only have truth insofar as such statements pertain to that which exists. this is why 'truth' depends on the context of being; i.e. whether it's grounded in actual being, or only in the logical relationship between names that don't necessarily point to actual things. the latter have no real existence, but only logical existence, like a "square circle". so if nothing existed, it would be logically true that nothing exists, but not actually true, because nothing is actual when nothing exists. notice that the truth content of things that only have logical existence can be paradoxical, contradictory, equivalent to the empty set, etc, and we can observe this because we live in actual reality, where "if not A then (not A if and only if true)" is true when A is T (a tautology like 'being is'), since it simplifies to "if false then (false iff false)" which simplifies to "if false then false" which is always true for the material conditional.
>>24773673>hates philosophy >posts in a philosophy thread anywaysThanks for your contribution
>>24773700>Hint: You can off-hand dismiss religions with an impersonal God, no I will not elaborate.Why would someone want to do that unless they hate religious people
>>24773651>If nothing existed, would it be true that nothing exists? Why or why not?relies on the deliberate confusion of termsif there was nothing at all, then there wouldn't be space or dimensionality or the potential consideration of suchso, 'nothing' would not exist as a differentiable thingI'll let the renowned philosopher Macho Man Randy Savage explainhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWrlAmT4jyA
>>24773651Truth is what we call a belief that we assent to and operate with in our actions. If nothing exists, then there are no minds for which beliefs and truths could exist. Nothing exists. It’s only true now, for you, to say that nothing exists, but that truth wouldn’t exist if nothing actually existed. Truth only exists because of a subject.
>>24773651Is this bait or are you actually retarded?
>>24773813>Truth is being qua intelligible.Cool formulation, thanks. >God is necessary and the measure of truth is the LogosBased
>>24773863This is good stuff>>24773982I don't think beleif has any bearing on what is true. God probably doesn't believe anything because He knows everything. But I agree about the subject and the Subject is God.
