The Law Of Contradiction

This is my first Topic on these forums, so please be kind. =)Many of the arguments against religion/faith/creation that I see on this site seem to be implicitly recognizing the Law Of Contradiction. In other words they are trying to show that there is a contradiction inherent in the belief in God or in the bible, and therefore that God does not exist or the bible is not true. I am curious if that is in fact where these arguments stem from, and if so, does everyone accept this Law as a fundamental truth.Here is a simple explanation of the Law Of Contradiction (or Noncontradiction as it is sometimes called).
Law of noncontradiction - WikipediaPossibly the "Is It Science?" forum.Edited by Ender, : Forum suggestion.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It starts out very civil until they realize whether or not you can debate and whether or not you have good points. The better your arguments, the more their vehemence will increase. I agree with most of what you say, but I'd say that most of the atheists on here are aware of this law and are aware that they can no more disprove God than you could prove God. Where they want to discredit you is in asking you whether or not you are Bible Literalist. If you concede then they will attempt to flame you with their skeptics annotated bible and try to discredit the Word of God, thus, tacitly discrediting God, Himself.But there is always one thing they are typically incapable of answering truthfully. The mere fact that they spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to dissuade you in your faith coupled with the fact that many of them turn rabid against Christians speaks very loudly that there is still part of them that wants to believe, and in certain respects, do still believe. Case in point: I don't believe in flying-purple elephants. Because I don't believe in them I find no compulsion to argue about their existence, much less give it any thought. But this doesnt work for the atheist, otherwise, why not just spend as much time attempting to refute the existence of the flying-purple elephant? Why not something arbitrary to argue about? Why?-- Its because there is something in them that is mindful of their Creator and the mere fact that they give Him such 'undue' attention should speak very loudly to you that they do in fact care and that they are in fact effected by the notion of God.That's how I see it anyhow. Again, welcome to EvC.Here is a simple explanation of the Law Of Contradiction (or Noncontradiction as it is sometimes called).Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

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"?

I don't really try to come up with arguments against religion.I do accept the law of non-contradiction, however. Why? Have a counter-example to the LOC?

If GOD exists, then She exists regardless of any evidence that contradicts Its existence.If GOD does not exist then It does not exist regardless of any evidence that contradicts Her non-existence.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It seems to me that they ARE trying to disprove God using the Law of Contradiction. In fact if it is accepted that the Law of Contradiction is true, then it is in reality the only way TO disprove God (considering that the only way to disprove something outside of time/space, i.e. without evidence, is to prove that it is self-contradicting).

That would be true except that there are no religions based on Flying Purple Elephants, nor are their any people that tell you that if you don't believe in their version of FPE (for example FPEs with jet packs or FPEs with wings) you will burn in a very hot hell.The belief in a God has had a much greater impact on history and is so much a part of out current life/politics that it can't be simply ignored, even by non-believers.

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.

Let me rephrase. If atheists claim they don't believe in God, then why spend so much time showing all of us just how much they disbelieve? If they truly disbelieved, then what compulsion is there is in telling us all about it? Who cares, right? Why not just choose something arbitrary to get angry about? This leads me to believe that there is something in themselves that recognizes God as a threat. But a threat only comes from a fear that He might just exist. And so, I'm showing you that even the staunchest atheist on some level gives recognition to God. The best way for them to argue for their own atheism is not to engage in an argument. Talking about God only ensures that the concept of God will always exist. If they simply gave it no thought and refused to spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to disprove God, this would show everyone their truest intent. Does that make sense? That's right. But had they figured out that not talking about God is the best way to deny God, they might not be in this precarious situation that they're in. I guess the atheist isn't smart enough to figure that out. I also assume they are smart enough to figure out that being an agnostic makes more sense logically if you can't disprove the existence of God. Oh well. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Yes, but I also think they realise that it isn't really possible to disprove God. Nah, there's no way. God has magic powers so he can't be held to any law. Even if he is self-contradicting, he can still exist.And like jar typed, even if we do find a way to disprove the existence of god, if he does exists, he'll still exist even if we disprovce his existence (meaning...we were wrong).

I'm not sure. I wonder if we could take a poll. I'm curious.

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