Continued…
It needed a part two?
Here, let me wrap this whole thing up with one post.
—Maximum posts (half of which involve Tirib and Pat ripping each other) reached, and not a single one has any practical bearing on either politics or world issues.—
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here, let me wrap this whole thing up with one post.
—Maximum posts (half of which involve Tirib and Pat ripping each other) reached, and not a single one has any practical bearing on either politics or world issues.—[/quote]
Hey Now! Push and Tirib were ripping each other too. Actually anybody he talks to ends up ripping him? Weird.
And what you fail to realize is that they are ‘statement’ paradoxes, not deductive logic paradoxes. I don’t know any deductive logic paradoxs to exist.
Now, you are correct that in isolation, each of these statements can end up paradoxically. But they are not isolated but are in a system. Deductive logic paradoxes don’t exist as far as I know. We’re dealing with arguments not statements. Statement paradoxes are there for irrelevant to the issue.
Common-sence doesn’t tell us shit, basic logic dictates what must and must not be.
Can you show me an example of a deductive argument where non-contradiction does not exist? Not might not, but does not.
Like I said it’s one thing to say anything is possible, but you need to construct an argument that shows that a many non-contingent entities can exist. Or that something can both be contingent and non-contingent. If you try it, you’ll see why it doesn’t work.
When you say sometimes things violate Newtonian Laws, I call bullshit. Name one thing that is under the scope of Newtonian Laws, that violates it? The only places where Newtonian Laws are seemingly violated are places where they don’t apply. Same with anything really. Laws aren’t really broken, they are just out of jurisdiction.
[quote]pat wrote:
And what you fail to realize is that they are ‘statement’ paradoxes, not deductive logic paradoxes. I don’t know any deductive logic paradoxs to exist.
Now, you are correct that in isolation, each of these statements can end up paradoxically. But they are not isolated but are in a system. Deductive logic paradoxes don’t exist as far as I know. We’re dealing with arguments not statements. Statement paradoxes are there for irrelevant to the issue.
Common-sence doesn’t tell us shit, basic logic dictates what must and must not be.
Can you show me an example of a deductive argument where non-contradiction does not exist? Not might not, but does not.
Like I said it’s one thing to say anything is possible, but you need to construct an argument that shows that a many non-contingent entities can exist. Or that something can both be contingent and non-contingent. If you try it, you’ll see why it doesn’t work.
When you say sometimes things violate Newtonian Laws, I call bullshit. Name one thing that is under the scope of Newtonian Laws, that violates it? The only places where Newtonian Laws are seemingly violated are places where they don’t apply. Same with anything really. Laws aren’t really broken, they are just out of jurisdiction. [/quote]
I only mentioned Newtonian laws to illustrate how they are based on common sense, but fail to account for quantum mechanics, which most would agree work contrary to common sense. Just because something doesn’t make sense within our scope of experience doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
There’s no difference between so-called statement paradoxes and logical paradoxes. Arguments are nothing more than a series of statements, and every one of those statements assumes non-contradiction.
Did you read the link? Paradoxes exist, not just in isolation, but universally and systemically.
Furthermore, even if they didn’t exist, you would be arguing from ignorance. Even if you’ve never observed something to exist, it doesn’t mean it actually doesn’t exist. That possibility alone puts a dent in 100% certitude about anything.
I ran across this in another thread…I thought it was amusing:
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned” Metaphysics 101
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And what you fail to realize is that they are ‘statement’ paradoxes, not deductive logic paradoxes. I don’t know any deductive logic paradoxs to exist.
Now, you are correct that in isolation, each of these statements can end up paradoxically. But they are not isolated but are in a system. Deductive logic paradoxes don’t exist as far as I know. We’re dealing with arguments not statements. Statement paradoxes are there for irrelevant to the issue.
Common-sence doesn’t tell us shit, basic logic dictates what must and must not be.
Can you show me an example of a deductive argument where non-contradiction does not exist? Not might not, but does not.
Like I said it’s one thing to say anything is possible, but you need to construct an argument that shows that a many non-contingent entities can exist. Or that something can both be contingent and non-contingent. If you try it, you’ll see why it doesn’t work.
When you say sometimes things violate Newtonian Laws, I call bullshit. Name one thing that is under the scope of Newtonian Laws, that violates it? The only places where Newtonian Laws are seemingly violated are places where they don’t apply. Same with anything really. Laws aren’t really broken, they are just out of jurisdiction. [/quote]
I only mentioned Newtonian laws to illustrate how they are based on common sense, but fail to account for quantum mechanics, which most would agree work contrary to common sense. Just because something doesn’t make sense within our scope of experience doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
There’s no difference between so-called statement paradoxes and logical paradoxes. Arguments are nothing more than a series of statements, and every one of those statements assumes non-contradiction.
Did you read the link? Paradoxes exist, not just in isolation, but universally and systemically.
Furthermore, even if they didn’t exist, you would be arguing from ignorance. Even if you’ve never observed something to exist, it doesn’t mean it actually doesn’t exist. That possibility alone puts a dent in 100% certitude about anything.[/quote]
Post the link again and I will read it. I don’t know which one you are referring to.
[quote]pat wrote:
I ran across this in another thread…I thought it was amusing:
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned” Metaphysics 101[/quote]
Lol, except nobody is arguing they are the same, only that they are both true.
Here you go:
The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here you go:
The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.[/quote]
I found it, when you posted it didn’t show up as a link, which is why I could not find it…So which one would you like to discuss? I don’t see a single one that would have any influence on cosmology…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here you go:
The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.[/quote]
I found it, when you posted it didn’t show up as a link, which is why I could not find it…So which one would you like to discuss? I don’t see a single one that would have any influence on cosmology…[/quote]
Dude, this isn’t a discussion about cosmology. Again, I was only referring to the cosmological argument as an example of how EVERY LOGICAL ARGUMENT ASSUMES NON-CONTRADICTION.
If even a single paradox exists, it disproves the universality of non-contradiction. It means that in a least some cases, contradictions actually exist. Which means that the assumption of non-contradiction is tenuous and limited in scope, rather than universal.
Even Plato admitted that non-contradiction is impossible to logically derive, because all of logic depends on it being true. It is an UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTION of logic.
And when anything is based on an ASSUMPTION, it may actually prove to be false. It is an assumption, not a fact.
That is why 100% certainty is impossible, since everything, including religion, logic and science, is ultimately based on ASSUMPTIONS.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here you go:
The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.[/quote]
I found it, when you posted it didn’t show up as a link, which is why I could not find it…So which one would you like to discuss? I don’t see a single one that would have any influence on cosmology…[/quote]
Dude, this isn’t a discussion about cosmology. Again, I was only referring to the cosmological argument as an example of how EVERY LOGICAL ARGUMENT ASSUMES NON-CONTRADICTION.
If even a single paradox exists, it disproves the universality of non-contradiction. It means that in a least some cases, contradictions actually exist. Which means that the assumption of non-contradiction is tenuous and limited in scope, rather than universal.
Even Plato admitted that non-contradiction is impossible to logically derive, because all of logic depends on it being true. It is an UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTION of logic.
And when anything is based on an ASSUMPTION, it may actually prove to be false. It is an assumption, not a fact.
That is why 100% certainty is impossible, since everything, including religion, logic and science, is ultimately based on ASSUMPTIONS.[/quote]
Non-contradiction is a fact. Show me where it is not. That’s why I asked you to pick a paradox you wanted to discuss. It’s proven in that nothing has violated it and a conception of it is impossible. Therefore, it may actually be impossible to violate non-contradiction. But boy do you really, really want it to be.
There’s always a way out of contradictions. If you see a contradiction, you are simply missing something.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
- Note: I certainly understand Tirib’s position on the subject (many of you don’t know what he’s talking about, the older vets do) and do not hold that against him. It IS a conventional viewpoint and mine is certainly unconventional.
However, his hate and vitriol is over the top and I DO hold that against him. It, the hate and vitriol, is indefensible.
If he would’ve approached it like, “Push, I heartily disagree with you. I think you’re dead wrong,” and more or less left it at that, or even tossed in the proverbial, “I will pray for you,” that would’ve been fine and I would’ve understood. But the self righteous vomit spraying everywhere was too much. Simply too much.[/quote]
His approach does suck…I am not sure what I agreed with him on, could you clarify?..I agree there is a way to do things and a way not to. Disagreements don’t have to come to this, but then I don’t want to be represented by that. Letting it go, to some degree is tantamount to condoning it.
The problem is that when people have a grudge against Christianity, it’s precisely that kind of self-righteous indignation that makes people including me, want to puke. The problem is, that’s not Christianity, that’s using religion for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. "Hey look at me! I am Mr. Super Christian, everyone else are whores and perverters.
I know why he doesn’t argue honestly, he know’s going head to head, he would get killed in a true religious debate.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here you go:
The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.[/quote]
I found it, when you posted it didn’t show up as a link, which is why I could not find it…So which one would you like to discuss? I don’t see a single one that would have any influence on cosmology…[/quote]
Dude, this isn’t a discussion about cosmology. Again, I was only referring to the cosmological argument as an example of how EVERY LOGICAL ARGUMENT ASSUMES NON-CONTRADICTION.
If even a single paradox exists, it disproves the universality of non-contradiction. It means that in a least some cases, contradictions actually exist. Which means that the assumption of non-contradiction is tenuous and limited in scope, rather than universal.
Even Plato admitted that non-contradiction is impossible to logically derive, because all of logic depends on it being true. It is an UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTION of logic.
And when anything is based on an ASSUMPTION, it may actually prove to be false. It is an assumption, not a fact.
That is why 100% certainty is impossible, since everything, including religion, logic and science, is ultimately based on ASSUMPTIONS.[/quote]
Non-contradiction is a fact. Show me where it is not. That’s why I asked you to pick a paradox you wanted to discuss. It’s proven in that nothing has violated it and a conception of it is impossible. Therefore, it may actually be impossible to violate non-contradiction. But boy do you really, really want it to be.
There’s always a way out of contradictions. If you see a contradiction, you are simply missing something.[/quote]
Plato admitted you couldn’t logically deduce non-contradiction, because your logic would be circular. Yet you’re claiming it is a fact? Prove that it is an indisputable fact.
If it was a universal fact, the Liar’s Paradox wouldn’t exist, nor would any other paradox.
But even if we didn’t know of a single paradox, non-contradiction would still be an assumption rather than a fact.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
- Note: I certainly understand Tirib’s position[/quote]
As I do share his position, I can certainly understand. What I don’t understand is using this forum for anything solely theological. I didn’t see you advocate some public policy change that would make a continuation of the topic necessary (within the purpose of this forum). We said our piece, and we know where everyone stands. Again, if there was some legislation, that somehow (not sure how, really) related to the issue, fine. For example, we discuss gay marriage for obvious reasons. If there was no state recognition contemplated, no proposed legislation (either way), I wouldn’t bother at all. It would simply be off topic.
So, having now looked over the posts in question, I’d hope Tirib would step back from this fairly recent approach. On the other hand, I don’t think it helps to provoke him over his Calvinism, once positions have been voiced. Especially since, again, it has no bearing on what I, at least, imagine this specific forum to encompass. It seems completely off-topic.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here you go:
The most relevant paradoxes to our discussion are in the first section, under Logic.[/quote]
I found it, when you posted it didn’t show up as a link, which is why I could not find it…So which one would you like to discuss? I don’t see a single one that would have any influence on cosmology…[/quote]
Dude, this isn’t a discussion about cosmology. Again, I was only referring to the cosmological argument as an example of how EVERY LOGICAL ARGUMENT ASSUMES NON-CONTRADICTION.
If even a single paradox exists, it disproves the universality of non-contradiction. It means that in a least some cases, contradictions actually exist. Which means that the assumption of non-contradiction is tenuous and limited in scope, rather than universal.
Even Plato admitted that non-contradiction is impossible to logically derive, because all of logic depends on it being true. It is an UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTION of logic.
And when anything is based on an ASSUMPTION, it may actually prove to be false. It is an assumption, not a fact.
That is why 100% certainty is impossible, since everything, including religion, logic and science, is ultimately based on ASSUMPTIONS.[/quote]
Non-contradiction is a fact. Show me where it is not. That’s why I asked you to pick a paradox you wanted to discuss. It’s proven in that nothing has violated it and a conception of it is impossible. Therefore, it may actually be impossible to violate non-contradiction. But boy do you really, really want it to be.
There’s always a way out of contradictions. If you see a contradiction, you are simply missing something.[/quote]
Plato admitted you couldn’t logically deduce non-contradiction, because your logic would be circular. Yet you’re claiming it is a fact? Prove that it is an indisputable fact.
If it was a universal fact, the Liar’s Paradox wouldn’t exist, nor would any other paradox.
But even if we didn’t know of a single paradox, non-contradiction would still be an assumption rather than a fact.[/quote]
Correct, it’s not conceivable. The liar’s paradox is a statement paradox. You add a second sentence and the paradox is resolved. As with most paradoxes the ability to add elements removes the constraints of the paradox.
I don’t see the connection to paradoxes exist, therefore non-contradiction is false. The problem is that it necessarily must be true or arguments are useless to make.
Non-contradiction, cannot be true most of the time it has to be true all the time or it’s false. One example of non-contradiction being false and the whole shit house falls.
He’s the deal, if you put forth an argument that ends in a paradox, you did not make a deductive argument.
I really don’t see the problem since the premises in a deductive argument lead to a single conclusion…Even in your cosmological example, the supposed two conclusions are repetitions of one another.
If you put forth an argument that can have 2 contradictory conclusions, then your argument is really very bad. The point is to come to a single conclusion to the exclusion of all others, if your not doing that you aren’t doing deduction.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
- Note: I certainly understand Tirib’s position[/quote]
As I do share his position, I can certainly understand. What I don’t understand is using this forum for anything solely theological. I didn’t see you advocate some public policy change that would make a continuation of the topic necessary (within the purpose of this forum). We said our piece, and we know where everyone stands. Again, if there was some legislation, that somehow (not sure how, really) related to the issue, fine. For example, we discuss gay marriage for obvious reasons. If there was no state recognition contemplated, no proposed legislation (either way), I wouldn’t bother at all. It would simply be off topic.
So, having now looked over the posts in question, I’d hope Tirib would step back from this fairly recent approach. On the other hand, I don’t think it helps to provoke him over his Calvinism, once positions have been voiced. Especially since, again, it has no bearing on what I, at least, imagine this specific forum to encompass. It seems completely off-topic. [/quote]
Religion and politics are always intrinsically tied together. not sure why it curls your nose hairs…You don’t have to participate in that there are plenty of political topics.