Yes you have the freedom to deny the claim but the part you are missing is in line 6:
To make any counter-claim at all, you must use stable distinctions between true and not-true (A=A). This is not mere epistemic classification inside our practices or minds—it is the ontological precondition that binds reality itself, including non-thinking systems. Without that binary you could not even function.
So when you deny the necessity of Truth, you are already using the very ordered structure that Truth creates and coheres in order to do it. That is the performative contradiction in line 7.
Any coherent denial—including this one—still deploys the stable distinctions and ordered structure it questions (lines 6–7).
As far as I understand it, you are making your argument way more complicated than it seems. You should make the logical flow clearer in the words you use.
A valid version would go like this:
a. No Eternal Truth implies no reality (this is (5))
b. Reality exists
c. Eternal Truth exists
This is a valid modus tollens, and people would just disagree with (a).
But you bring “Logic” into it when it doesn’t add much. In fact, it’s unclear why Logic presupposes Eternal Truth. At best, it presupposes that reality exists, not that something (Truth) created and cohered it. And even if we accept (3), this is not enough to show that Eternal Truth is the origin of reality, only that Logic presupposes it is the case. That A presupposes B being true doesn’t mean B is true.
You also use words like “Logic” and “Truth” idiosyncratically, which seems to have confused some people.
So (3) and (5) are (highly) questionable; this kills your whole argument, and a lot of “premises” are unnecessary or just not really premises.
I kinda accept the isomorphism between reality and language (including logic, which is a language). The world functions as a system of signs. However, in language there is lying and falsehood (assuming that truth exists). Therefore, in that sense, language transcends reality if we assume that in external reality there are only truths; in other words, fiction exists. Consequently, we cannot determine, let us say, all propositions of language (including those of logic) to be true. According to the isomorphism, there may well be truths, but the structure of the universe, together with that of language, exceeds truth (fiction exists).
Following on from the above, for the isomorphism between reality and language to hold, one cannot maintain a conception of truth as correspondence. The world has the form of a language and language has the form of the world. However, the fact that fiction exists negates the existence of eternal truths solely in the world. Furthermore, if there is isomorphism between language and the world only in their structure and form, and not in their content, it follows that what we call ‘truth’ is something contingent and variable, truth being that property possessed by some of our judgements or propositions.
In conclusion, there is no such thing as ontological truth. There is pansemiotism. But truth no longer corresponds to the universe; rather, it simply FUNCTIONS AND IS PRAGMATIC, in this case for a living being called man. There are prehistoric cultures that had entire belief systems which we would today call false. And yet they survived.
Your modus tollens is valid in form, but the reduction has completely stripped out the actual engine of the argument.
The ascent in lines 1–3 (observable reality + Logic presupposing Truth) leading to the reductio in line 6 is what necessarily forces the conclusion in line 7. Without the ascent the reductio is impossible.
Logic presupposes Eternal Truth because Logic requires stable distinctions and patterns to function. If identity was not stable (A=A) then the laws of Logic couldn’t exist.
This is why the ascent and reductio are necessary. They demonstrate that any coherent denial must use stable distinctions between true and not-true to even be levied.
Yes, this is a fair critique with the context you have. The 7 lines are an excerpt from my full 29-page paper The Relational Precondition of Intelligibility and the Resolution of the One-Many Problem. The idiosyncratic use of terms and the reason Logic is necessary in the 7 lines is obvious in that full context.
Any denial—including your simplified version—still uses stable distinctions (A=A: true vs. false) and ordered structure that only Eternal Truth can create and cohere. You cannot coherently reject (a) without performing the very thing (a) says is impossible.
So it’s not just “people disagree with (a).” The question is: how do you make a coherent denial at all without deploying the very Eternal Truth you reject?
Yes, Logic requires those distinctions and patterns if you want. Those aren’t what you called “Eternal Truth”.
This is why the ascent and reductio are necessary. They demonstrate that any coherent denial must use stable distinctions between true and not-true to even be levied.
Yes but it doesn’t show that (7) is ontologically true (you wrote “Only an Eternal Origin explains the reality we observe”). Just that Logic can’t deny it because it presupposes it.
What is perception if not the alignment and application of stable distinctions via Logic? How could you perceive anything if you couldn’t distinguish stable identity (A=A as “this ≠ that”)? Perception is the very result of the Logic that the argument invokes—aligning sensory input to the repeatable patterns observed in reality.
Even if I were to grant this narrow view, it would still require the stable distinctions that only Eternal Truth can create and cohere.
This is relating to my earlier clarification:
You appear to have misunderstood. The argument uses “Logic” exactly as philosophy has always used it: the process by which we make sense of reality through stable distinctions and patterns (line 1). The narrow restriction to only induction and deduction is the arbitrary narrowing, not the standard philosophical meaning.
How do you ground coherent perception or any philosophical reasoning without the Eternal Truth the argument derives?
Well, the first thing first. Will reply on the rest of the points in due course when time permits here.
Perception takes place with your bodily senses such as eyes, ears, skin, nose and tongue etc. It has nothing to do with Logic. Logic operates when you have to check if a statement is true or false, or trying to establish a general law in reality.
Your bodily sense can operate without any Logic involved by itself as the biological instinct. You will know what your food is, what you must drink in order to survive, and you will breathe the air in order to keep living with no logic applied there.
Your view seems to have come from putting the cart in front of the horse.
Logic is not itself a language. Symbols and language are tools (line 2):
This is incorrect. All epistemic knowledge, including every novel, movie, poem, music, can be perfectly stored and processed on digital systems built on the simplest possible coherent language: binary true (1) versus false (0). Language cannot transcend this true/false foundation.
You are conflating “fiction” with misalignment from Truth. Fiction is simply a higher-level abstraction built on the same true/not-true foundation as every other language. Movies, for example, are fully encoded onto disks using that same distinction.
Misalignment absolutely presupposes Truth. It would be impossible to misalign from something unless there was an invariant standard to align to.
Your conclusion itself makes a distinction between true and not-true—otherwise you could not even make the claim (performative contradiction, line 7).
Any system of signs, including pansemiotism, still cannot transcend the true/false foundation created and cohered by Truth—exactly as shown by the binary encoding of all languages above.
All prehistoric cultures were entirely dependent on the stable distinctions created by Truth. Every belief system ultimately reduces to two real categories: alignment with Truth or deviation from it. The cultures that aligned closest to Truth thrived and the ones that didn’t died out.
Truth doesn’t exist on its own. There is no such things as Eternal Truth.
Truth is a value of a statement. When you make a statement, and if it corresponds with the situation or object in reality, then we call the statement true or a truth.
Truth’s very ontological nature is to create distinctions from itself (A=A, “this ≠ that”). By “create” I mean generating a real, stable distinction where none existed before—the basic ability to say “this is not that” in a way that holds invariantly. There is nothing else in existence that can generate this duality. Truth alone creates distinctions. If you can name something else that can do it, you can end this argument right now.
It does show exactly that. If every coherent claim, even contradictory ones, requires stable distinctions that are invariant across all possible worlds, then Truth must exist independently of the universe.
Everything in the observable universe is contingent: impermanent and in flux. Brains decay, matter and energy transform, stars burn out, particles change, galaxies evolve. Nothing physical or biological is eternal; everything depends on prior conditions and is subject to alteration.
If the contingent universe itself requires stable distinctions, it cannot be their source. Truth must therefore be the non-contingent precondition.
Any coherent denial—including this one—still deploys the very stable distinctions and ordered structure it questions (lines 6–7). That is precisely why line 7 is ontologically true: only an Eternal Origin explains the reality we observe.
You are confusing a binary language with a language based on truth and falsehood. We call a 1 ‘true’ and a 0 ‘false’ by convention. We could call them ‘yes’ and ‘no’ respectively, and it would make no difference. But it is not the case that 0 in the coding literally means something false; rather, it represents a second output or alternative in a binary system. Your counter-argument is incorrect. Therefore, my argument stands.
You can view it as a language game governed by certain rules. And in this game, I would be right and you would be wrong.
The contradiction may be determined to be false, but it possesses meaning. Accordingly, meaning transcends the binary of true and false. See non-binary logics.
Prehistoric cultures had a language, and this language had meaning/significance. If we already know that meaning and significance transcend binary thinking (true/false), then a fortiori the same must be said of prehistoric cultures.
Every sensory input (light, sound, chemicals, pressure) is transduced into ordered electrical signals carrying stable distinctions (A=A) before anything reaches “interpretation.” Biological instincts only succeed because those patterns are reliable. That is exactly the “ordered structure” and “stable distinctions” lines 1–3 describe.
Your own claim backfires, fully exposing the stable distinctions that must be true for any contingent perceiver to exist at all. Logic’s very ontological nature is the alignment and application of the stable distinctions created and cohered by Truth. Logic cannot fulfil that nature without stable ordered patterns.
How do you account for the reliable success of these sensory processes and instincts without the very stable distinctions and ordered structure the argument identifies?
You don’t say A=A every time when your senses encounter A. Your instinct knows it. You only say A=A, if someone says to you A is not A.
But you must be also intelligent enough to understand A is NOT A in some occasions. If you see abstract art, you will notice that A is NOT A. A mountain can represent your head, and a tree can be your friend. If you are imprisoned in A=A, and deny the reality itself, then you will walk into misunderstandings and misconceptions.
This is the same epistemic containment argument I have already rebutted previously:
How do you account for those mind-independent, non-human patterns (and even digital binary processing) without the stable distinctions created and cohered by the Eternal Truth the argument identifies?
No I fully explained this in my previous post (35).
You cannot ground the stable distinctions and patterns that your body 100% depends on for any perception at all. Do you fully understand the claim you are making? You are saying that you are the creator of all stable distinctions and patterns. That all light, sound waves etc., all chemical and pressures are created by you.
Of course bodily senses has its ranges and limits. However, waves and all chemical pressures are read by the instruments, from which we take the readings into our perception.
You are still relying on your bodily sensation and perception in order to perceive waves and pressures with the aid of the instruments.
If you are deaf and blind, then you will not be able to use or read the instruments.
Yes, your own claim exposes the reality that the argument makes.
Exactly. Contingent things inside the universe are individually distinguishable from other things—meaning they have stable identities (Logic’s Law of Identity A=A). Those stable identities, created and cohered by Truth, form the ordered patterns that you necessarily require to logically function at all (or even to understand abstract art or metaphors).