Who here /necessitarian/? 'Possibility' properly relates

>>8783045
So when can something be said to be true? Only when it has happened?

>>8783055
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Put simply, there is always one true future state of affairs [for, say, a year from now]. This state of affairs is not infallibly known by humans, and so cannot be infallibly asserted to be true. But it is true regardless, since it will come to pass.

>>8783088

But because humans have free will, though we agree only one future state can occur, it is not set in stone, because a person has a choice, whether to do this or this or this or this or this or that, right now the future in which one of those thises was the one chosen does not exist, because humans have the ability to choose out of multiple choices, the future is crafted by choice.

File: Sawasawa.full.1957293.jpg (1MB, 1700x1195px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1700x1195px

>>8783045
I've always been a determinist. I imagine everything in the universe as a metaphysical necessity relating back to God. So basically, I think that the only reason two plus two equals four is because the nature of the divine love determined it and is determining it, and that such a reality where this is not the case is impossible, not because it would have empirical consequences but because such a reality was never in the divine intellect to begin with.
That is to say, metaphysics is prior to epistemology.

File: 1507280.jpg (363KB, 500x712px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 500x712px

>>8783133
And choice is in turn crafted by the operation of unconscious matter in the universe, which itself is determined in relation to the subsisting principle of existence which is God.
The divine love of God is the only cause of objectivity, any opposite assertion has the consequence that nothing is possible to exist abject from perception and experience, and by extension that perception cannot exist since perception is dependent on objectively occurring phenomena, this bottoms out in the assertion that existence is the same as non-existence which is of course to say that nothing exists, which is wrong because we perceive that things do exist.