In the thread,
What led you to God Invictus and I were discussing logic, because Invictus thought that i said something which means I am against the law of non contradiction, when I stated;
mike the wiz writes:
But nevertheless, contradiction doesn't automatically = false. There could be any number of explanations. One is that by trying to define and understand this concept, you infact guarantee a contradictive conclusion.
Infact, I admitt bad grammer. I should have said that having a conclusion which infers that God is definitionally contradictive, doesn't mean God is false. This is because, as I said above, attempting to define God might lead to contradictions in your hypothetics about him, but that doesn't mean that those hypothetics are correct in reality. For example, terms like "omniscience/omnipotent" are a bit useless, because we don't really understand them, or how they are possible.
Invictus writes:
If we are dealing in logic, then a contradiction IS, by its definition, FALSE. If it isn't false, then it isn't a contradiction
Yes Invictus. Infact, the opposite of a
contradiction , by
definition is a
tautology. Here's more on the law of non contradiction;
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
But this link doesn't disagree with what I'm talking about in the other thread. I shall expound;
None of the above is in question by me.
What I was infact saying, was that when you stated that the following
form cannot be true, then you were wrong:
Invictus writes:
Oh, and contradiction DOES = false. The statement: (x=y and x=/y) is a false statement, because it can NEVER be true. (=/ means "does not equal").
While a genuine contradiction can never be true by definition, the actual
form of the above statement, can be true, which is ALL I meant!
To which I replied;
mike the wiz writes:
If an apple is red and green, the statement "Y is B and not B", can be true, if B represents green. Because in places, the apple is green and in other places it is not.
The following link says;
... says that every statement is either true or false: there is nothing in between. It's also known as completeness - a complete logical system is one in which this law holds. When combined with consistency - the assumption that truth doesn't contradict itself (which would be absurd) - this gives us a very powerful tool, reductio ad absurdum. This is a method of proof: to prove a statement A, take a contrary hypothesis, reason from this to an absurdity, conclude (by consistency) that the contrary hypothesis is false, whence (by completeness) that A is true. I refer to this mechanism, in brief, as reductio.
Here is the link.
I bet you are wondering what it means by "completeness"? It means that if the composition of the ingredients of proposition q, are elementary, then there is a contradiction.
What I mean by this, is that the statement "q and not q", is only a contradiction, dependent on the fact of the completeness of the substance in question.
I gave an example of this in the other thread, when I said;
mike the wiz writes:
The assertion; the apple is red and not red, as a statement, posits a contradiction. Similarly, one might say " God must be so and so, and not so and so".
This is a false contradiction because the composition of the colour of the apple involves 3% of it's colour having green spots. Therefore, it is not truly a contradiction afterall. It is a false one.
As you can see, the world of objects can be looked at from many different viewpoints. A book cannot be
NOT a book, but in logic, one must prove the contradiction because of the possibility of false contradictions. For example, I could not say,
" This book cannot be yellow and not yellow, therefore it is a contradiction ". I couldn't say this, because it is not yellow BY COMPLETENESS. If it was 100% elementally yellow, then it would be a genuine contradiction.
We can say
it cannot be a book and not a book, because the term "book" is complete. In every part, it is a book, 100%.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-20-2006 09:08 AM
™ Version 4.2