UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 5 to Meditation 605
Six demonstrations that the argument is wrong (or using a sledgehammer to obliterate a gnat.)

by: JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form.

Will:

I don't know why you want to persist in this line of discussion. An axiom that contradictions are acceptable means that whatever you are using, it is not logic capable of establishing Truth and Falsity and it does not reflect the way we use logic in the real observable world.

So first of all, your argument fails1 because, whatever it is, it is not logic and not logical.

Secondly, in any such argument, the axioms have to be accepted by both parties. Axioms are self-evident truths. On that basis, I reject your axiom and all that follows from it. Again, your argument fails.2

Suppose, for the sake of argument, I were to accept your "axiom." Then I would immediately develop from that axiom Theorem #1 which states: Contradictions are not acceptable in this system of logic. This theorem would have to stand based on your axiom accepting contradictions, solely because it contradicts that axiom. Yet conveniently, it simultaneously destroys that axiom and we have a standard system of logic. Arguing from Theorem#1, I could show that the contradictions in the Bible make it full of errors, and therefore not inerrant. Yet again, your argument fails.3

Alternatively, having established Theorem#1, I could show that "Contradictions are acceptable" AND "Contradictions are not acceptable" produces a state of indeterminacy - which then ends up with the point made by Gordon Barker in Discussion 3. Once again, your argument fails.4

Now, I will admit that, if you delve into the underpinnings of mathematics there is the possibility for working with non-Boolian logic systems in which a state of indeterminacy as a solution is acceptable. Alternative logic systems are similar to the concept of non-Euclidean geometries. Such alternative logic systems are being considered as a way of making quantum mechanics consistent with observable reality.[1] However a state of indeterminacy is neither TRUE nor FALSE in such a logic system. Your argument would still fail.5

And, if you want to use such a logic system and consider the Bible as a quantum artifact, the Bible has been observed and its quantum state has collapsed into an error condition. And your argument fails.6[2]

Footnotes:

  1. New Scientist, April 14-20, 2007
  2. Unless there is a genuine (as opposed to manure-muddling) contribution relating to the issue of contradiction and logic, this part of the dicusssion is closed. However, the overall discussion remains open.