The Law Of Contradiction

What an interesting question.
I have never actually heard of a formal "Law of contradiction" and if there is such a thing then I can't say I ever really thought about whether it is a fundamental truth or not. It just seems like one of those things that are assumed.I guess that what you need to ask is this. Is it possible for two things that are mutually exclusive to co-exist?For example, take these two statements..
The moon exists
The moon does not exist?I would say that it is a rather fundamentally obvious truth that both of these statements cannot be true for the same piece of space-time.Is that what you are getting at by the "Law of contradiction"?

Any Scientist, atheist or theist, is well aware of the fact that science has absolutely nothing to say about God whatsoever. You are right that we cannot disprove him and that the theist cannot prove him.
Any attempt at disproving God on a base of logic via the "Law of Contradiction" is not really an attempt to disprove the existence of God but to disprove (or falsify) a specific, man made depiction of God and his attributes.
For example the logical impossibility of any being, simultaineously having the attributes of Omniscience and Omnipotence.This is not an attack on God at all. If you want to think of it as an attack at all then it is an attack on the arrogance of a mere human who presumes to be able to define God in his own percieved image. Please note that this is only your version of God. There are plenty of people who do not need to believe that the bible is inerrant in order to have a perfectly fullfilling relationship with God. The only reason we do is because we are defending ourselves against inflamatory remarks like this one. There I answered the unanswerable question. That's an easy one. here are a few of the reasons.

• Nobody accuses me of having no morals because I lack a belief in flying purple elephant.
• Nobody accuses scientists who don't believe in flying purple elephants, of being dishonest or falsifying evidence in an A-Flying-Purple-Elephant conspiracy.
• Nobody attempts to inject teachings about said Flying-Purple-Elephant into science classes under the thin disguise of ID.
• Nobody keeps rubbing my face in the fact that if I don't believe in their Flying-Purple-Elephant, that I am an evil sinner who is going to hell.
• Nobody comes around knocking on my door and preaching the virtues of belief in the Flying-Purple-Elephant, or thrusts pamphlets at me in public places.

Only to the extent that they become annoyed at constantly having to defend themselves and science in general against "the great uninformed" who continuously barrage them with religious mumbo-jumbo.And that is the way I see it.Also bear in mind that the actual Atheists here at EVC are in the minority. Most members are actually Christian, just not literalists.

Yes it is true that some have attempted to make this argument.
The point is that they are very wrong to do so and I have argued that point here at EVC in the past.You cannot logically disprove the existence of God. What you can do is show logically that some specific definitions of God are not possible. That does not make the actuallity of God any more or less real. God either IS or ISN'T regardless of what logic we throw at him/her/it (see Jar's post) I would dispute that this is accepted. By whom is it accepted?
Certainly not by anyone who has a good grasp of science or logic. And herein lies the problem with the argument.
If the person trying to disprove God does so in this way then he first has to define God such that a contradiction exists. Then he has to knock down his own definition. Basically he is just proving that his own strawman cannot exist. It says nothing whatsoever aboout the real God.

That would be interesting.
Think about it this way though.
How many self professed atheists do you know of here?
How many self professed Christians do you know of here?IMO the Christians are the larger group but i could be wrong.

I think you are missing the point.At least in my own experience, I have had to continuously defend my atheistic position against a barrage of assaults.
People telling me how I think and feel, then refusing to accept what i tell them about it.
People defining my lack of belief into something it isn't and arguing that I must believe in this or that.There is nothing I would like more than to just forget about God entirely but everywhere I look, my lack of belief is under attack.You ask... I answer.. Obviously you do since you brought it up and I didn't. I don't care in the slightest but I won't stand idly by and be dissed

SO are you saying that Science CAN prove or disprove the existence of God?
Go on then. Show us all where God has been detected and measured by science. I know what you are trying to do but the thing is that you are doing once again, the very thing that makes me and many other atheist get into this kind of discussion. You are trying to argue from an atheist mindset and getting it all wrong. Atheist arguments don't go anything like this. You are telling me how I think ,reason beleive but you seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of it.
I think you are likely using a very narrow definition of the term Atheist but I'm not absolutely sure. You say... Actually I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but I think you are hinting that Atheists actively believe that God does not exist. If so then you are wrong. We don't all think that way. Atheists (by the definition of the word) simply lack an active belief in God. Disbelief is not necessary (although it is present in many). My Atheism is similar to Agnosticism except that I sway way over to the "God is not likelely to exist" camp in just the same way as I think it is highly unlikely that your Flying-Purple-Elephant exists. No positive evidence exists for either so I feel exactly the same about them both.now as to your other points. Your answer here isn't even self consistant. It looks like you just pulled a bunch of random words out of thin air and threw them together.
What the heck has purpose got to do with anything?
It's like I asked you how many eggs you have in your basket and you answered "Chicken". It's meaningless. So what you are saying is that red could quite well actually be yellow. it just means that I don't understand color. very enlightening , I must say.This issue is really at the core of the OP so let's look a bit closer to see if i understand the terms Omniscient and Omnipotent eh?Omnipotent = The power to do absolutely anything. No limits can ever be imposed.Omniscient = Unerring Knowledge of Everything, past, present and future. Cannot ever be wrong even in the tiniest way.I contend that these two concepts cannot co-exist in any one being since he would know everything he is ever going to do and yet still have the power to not do it. Yet the act of not doing itwould mean he was wrong.Either Omniscience negates ompipotence since it limits the omnipotent being's actions to only those that he knows he will do in advance OR Omnipotence nullifies any kind of foreknowledge. No no no. We talk about loads of Gods here at EVC. That is half the problem. Everybody here is talking about a subtly different one. makes agreement kind of difficult. Actually I attack anything I believe to be untrue and even many things that I believe are true. If the thing stands up to my attack then it is one step closer to acceptance. If it crumbles then it has been falsified. that is the way of science. I only feel threatened by ignorance since it seems to latch onto dangerous notions. Not this again.
Morals come from upbringing, society and any number of other factors. Since no two people anywhere share absolutely identical morals, they must be subjective. If there is any such thing as an objective moral then nobody has ever seen it so it might as well not exist.
I call the remarks inflamatory because society recognises them as such. If i were to call you an ignorant butthole (not that I am doing so) you would feel insulted. So would everybody in our society. maybe in another society it might be a compliment. because it appears to be an insult and everyone (relatively speaking) gets upset or annoyed when they are insulted.Ah crap! This is getting too long so it will have to do for now.Edited by PurpleYouko, : Somehow i managed to transpose a chunk of text in the wrong place

But he does have to be able to potentially do it.
He has to have the power to negate his own omniscience since that is quite clearly contained with set of things he can do which are defined by EVERYTHING.
That is a pretty all inclusive set.
He must also have the knowledge of how to limit his omnipotence since that too is well within the bounds of what he knows if he does indeed know EVERYTHING.Anything that we can concieve of is included in those sets

If they don't include that then they are limiting Gods abilities aren't they?
But assuming that it does fall into the square circle catagory and ignoring it, there are still much more mundane problems. Look at this example.We have a totally Omniscient and Omnipotent being (doesn't have to be God. Any ALL-Everything being will do)He knows with absolute certaintly that on next Thursday afternoon at 3:14 and 23 seconds, he will purchase a Nintendo Gamecube from EB Games in the local mall.
When next Thursday come around he decides that Gamecubes aren't all that and buys a Playstation 2 instead.Do you see the problem? There is no square circle issue here. he simply knew one thing (omniscience) that couldn't ever possibly be wrong and then went and did something else that made it wrong by means of his Omnipotence.If he was truly omniscient then nothing he could possibly do would make him buy anything other than the gamecube. He CAN'T be wrong. Ever. This would obviously limit his omnipotenceIf he was truly Omnipotent then nothing could prevent him changing his mind and buying the PS2. This would make his omniscience useless since he was wrong.The only possible conclusion here is that this being either isn't ommipotent or he isn't omniscient. For him to be both is a clear contradiction.

Exactly.
You summed it up perfectly.
Omniscience and omnipotence fall into that catagory. Within a single being, the definition of either one precludes the presence of the other.

Doesn't change his mind huh?
Doesn't make mistakes either I suppose?
Now what was he that he said to Noah after the flood? Something about being sorry maybe? I like it. Good luck selling that to the fundies.

Uhh... OK then. Some other God perhaps. No Probs.

What I said is that science has nothing to say about God. It can't detect, measure, prove or disprove him/her/it. Science is, pretty much by definition, Agnostic. This is what it was all about I don't see any premises defined here. I just pointed out that it is only logically possible to knock down definition of God which you have first defined in a non-logical way. If there wasn't a logical conflict in the definition then it could not be knocked down with logic.
Any real God would have to be logical within the universe that he created would he not?
I have no idea what you are going on about with purposes since no atheist proposition concerning the purpose of anything, has to my knowledge been put forward, particularly in this thread. NO IT ISN"T!!!
See this is what pisses me off and keeps me in the argument. People telling me what I believe in when I patently DO NOT believe that.
Atheism is specifically defined by the lack of (that is what the A prefix means) Theism (or a belief on God or Gods)
It is just like A-Sexual (lack of sex) or are you going to tell me that a Asexual creature/thing actively believes that Sex does not exist.
One more time, here is a link. Please read it and stop perpetuating this untruth about me. No webpage found at provided URL: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm
Here is an exerpt

quote:

---

here is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists ” atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

​

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made ” an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

---

This is the reason that I argue about Atheism. It's because people just won't let it drop. They define me into a corner then beat me over the head with it. It happens again and again and again... ad nauseum. Then another person comes along and it starts all over again.
I am most definitely not an Agnostic since an Agnostic sits on the fence, is undecided. To me it fits the same catagory of undecided as does the existence of that Flying-Purple-Elephant of yours. It is incredibly unlikely due to a singular lack of even one piece or corroborating evidence..... Ever. But like any scientist I cannot entirely rule it out as I have no way to prove it either way.
God, to me, is utterly irrelevent. Just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Odin, Sant and all the other imaginary friends that people have made up over the years.
The only thing is that just maybe, tomorrow, somebody will come forward with irrefutable evidence of the existence of one of the aforementioned imaginary beings. Which one it is makes absolutely no difference to me. No I'm not fluent in gobbledygook See Message 38 No you can't. not if you are omniscient. Your knowledge of the future is PERFECT and cannot be made to be wrong. And that too is a perfectly good example. It has nothing to do with understanding and a lot to do with unwillingness to really ask the question. If you start of with the premise that you have to be right no matter what then you can hand wave anything away. All this means is that our definition of good changes to become whatever God does. You can't limit what he can do or he will not be omnipotent. All you can do is change what we consider to be good. I would love to. The subject fascinates me. Don't be ridiculous. Everybody is part of society. it is a living breathing entity that cahnges with time. Morality now is completely different than it was a couple hundred years ago and it will be different again in another couple of hundred yeasr. We are all molded by the society in which we live. And the things we do help to shape the society of the future.Don't have time for th erest. i have to go.

It makes a MASSIVE difference.
To say "I don't believe there is a God" is to say I have a lack of belief. It just isn't there.
To say "I believe there is no God" is a positive affirmation of the non-existance of God. This is an irrational and scientifically indefensible position. It can NEVER be backed up by proof. It is faith in the same way that belief in God is faith.

I don't get angry at the prospect of him existing.
I sometimes get irritated when people write scathing and unfounded attacks on Atheists.
If you stop attacking the Atheistic position I will quite readily stop arguing against your position. I can quite truthfully say that in 3 years on theis forum i have never instigated a discussion regarding any aspect of God or his existence/non-existence. I simply respond to others. Well first, for God to be dead he would first have to have existed.
Secondly, I don't know of any case where somebody has won a court case by saying nothing in response to accusations made against them.

And there you go again with your accusations. I have never known any atheist attempt to disprove ANY religion. That's not what we are about.
If you shove it down our throats then we will naturally fight back but not to disprove religion or to attempt to convert you. We just want you to STOP.
As for venom? I have only seen that from ONE side of the fence and it isn't mine. Not at all. You just picked a definition that would fit to your argument instead of looking at the real facts.
It's pretty darn complex really.
I already gave you the definition which is most commonly held and which was, by the way, defined by atheists themselves rather than imposed on them by Christians. You may note that my defininition came from "http://www.ATHEIST.about.com"Try looking up "weak atheist" and see what you find. ALL atheist are first "Weak Athesist" but some are also "Strong Atheists" which match the definition that you posted.Here is another example from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html

quote:

---

Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God. On this definition, strictly speaking, anyone who isn’t a theist is an atheist. Someone who doesn’t have an opinion about religion, having never really thought about it, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist. Someone who has thought about religion, but hasn’t reached any conclusions about it, lacks belief in God, and is therefore a weak atheist. Someone who has thought about religion, and has reached the provisional, tentative conclusion that God doesn’t exist, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist. And someone who confidently and dogmatically affirms that there is no God, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist.

---

quote:

---

A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist. It is not necessary to feel complete certainty that God does not exist in order to be a strong atheist; the essential difference between strong atheism and weak atheism is that strong atheism is defined in terms of possession of the belief that God does not exist, while weak atheism is defined in terms of absence of the belief that God does exist.

---

You appear to be equating all atheism with strong atheism when that simply is not the case.
I am NOT a "Strong" Atheist and neither are many others. In fact I consider Strong atheism to be non-scientific since it requires faith. That was badly descibed on my part. You are right. It doesn'y mean without sex. Then again the word isn't A-sex is it? It is A-sexual which means without "Sexual" reproduction, so while badly written, my argument still stands.
How about Asymetrical (lacking symetry) Can you think of any that do not mean lacking someting? If you can then I will stand corrected. That was what I always considered myself, parts 1 and 2 fit me best.
Then when I professed that possition, many people pointed out to me that I was not really an Agnostic but a weak Atheist.
Seems I just can't win either way. Hehe