Robert Kilwardby distinguished the per se and per accidens forms of this property to explain why conversion rules don’t allow one to ascribe this property to a literate being. A theorem from Gödel’s ontological argument implies that uncomfortably many things have this property in a certain form of “collapse.” John Duns (15[1])Scotus’s account of free will rejects the traditional view that the present has this property. Since (-5[1])(*) past truths have this property, Diodorus Cronus’s master argument holds (10[1])that this (-5[1])property (-5[1])is identical to possibility. (-5[1])Ockham held (10[1])that God was the only (10[1])being with this property, (10[1]-5[1])so his existence can be assumed even though (10[1])“entities ought not be multiplied beyond” this property. (10[1])For 10 points, contingency is contrasted with what property of statements that could not have been false? ■END■ (10[3]0[1])