REFUTATION OF ANARGUMENT .

IT is argued in favour of Possibility of Falsehood that a given statement is same but it become true or false in reference to the external occurrance. For example Zaid is standing is true if Zaid is really standing and is false if zaid is really not standing. The author of Subhaan ASSubbuh argued that a true sentence is always true and a false statment is perpetually false. The proper responce is that the words and the meanings are same in both cases but the external references are different. When there is a Self Possibility for the Occurrance, this implies the Possibility of Conversion of a true statement into a false statement and the possibility of conversion of a false statement into true statement. Consider the case Zaid is Standing. As it is Self Possible for Zaid to stand and not to stand, The other SELF Possibility DOES IMPLY AND DOES IMPLICATE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONVERSION. Similarly if the statment Zaid is not standing is False THEN THE SELF POSSIBILITY OF STANDING OF ZAID SELF IMPLIES THE POSSIBILITY OF TRUTH. But if the Occurance is Self Necessary or Self Absud then there is no SELF Possibility of Conversion . Is it true that if the statment Zaid is standing is repeated more then one times then there are distint similar statements. and not a single statment regardless of truth or falsehood in each repeatation. We accept this thing. But this does not disprove the Self Possibility Of Falsehood. They are similar statements and vertually identical but not really identical. But hence distint from each other.But The falsehood and truth is only in regard to external occurrance.

If these references are SELF POSSIBILE TO CHANGE the argument is Correct, Valid and Forceful,. The author of the book Subhaan Assubbuh missed the point. Actially it was intended that these statments are same in form And not IDENTICAL in Real meaning. The stated above author took it in the meaning of Real Identity which is an incorret interpretation. In the case when the external occurrance is SELF NECESSARY or Self Absurd then there are only two Self Possibilities. Possibility of a true statement and Possibility of a false statement. Then there is no Self Possibility Of Conversion Of A True Statement into a false statement or Conversion of a False STATEMENT INTO A TRUE STATEMENT. In any case when there is such a Self Possibility the Possibility of Falsehood is Self Implied and Intrinsically Implicated OR MORE FORCEFULLY INTRINSICALLY SELF IMPLIED. fOR EXAMPLE CONSIDER THE STATEMENT: The Deity Is One. AS plurality of DETIES IS Self Absurd there is no SELF Possibility of Conversion of this statement into a false statement. But there is still a self Possibility Of A False Statement THE DEITIES ARE MORE THAN ONE. This false statment can not be convertedin to a true statement.It is Self Absurd. Comming back to the original question if the statement is ZAID IS STANDING IS STANDING is repeated several times each time it is a new statement similar in Intrinsic form AND MEANING, and dissimilar in extrinsic reference. It is Self Possibble to change the extrinsic Reference and eternal Occurance. One must not neglect the difference in the Statement of Self Possible Occurrance , Self Absurd Occirrance and Self Necessary Occurance.

Finally one must know that in regard to internal reference statments and there negation both have no truth values. Consider te statements. THE NEGATION OF THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE. THE STATEMENT IS FALSE. NO ONE KNOW THAT THE GIVEN STATEMENT IS TRUE. NO ONE KNOWS THE GIVEN STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE ETC.