- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiI could not have said it better. Got my rec for whatever that's worth.🙂
True but it would have to be a real contradiction, and not just a possible one. And you would need to show that the two statements can only be understood as two contradictory propositions.
If you take statements from two different books, from two different authors, with two different styles of writing - how do you prove they intended to covey propositi ...[text shortened]... s one or the other. Maybe we can not prove it either way - which means it is not a significant.
03 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiBut St John asserts one is true, while the Synoptics assert the
As for when Jesus was crucified - before or after the Passover Seder, it's one or the other. Maybe we can not prove it either way - which means it is not a significant.
other is true.
Edit: This is a violation of 1. or 2. according to your world view.
Either contradictions can exist (thus 2. remains true while 1. is false)
or contradictions cannot exist (and 2. is false while 1. remains true).
Nemesio
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioYou are wrong. You think you have correctly understood the truth being conveyed - but the fact that you have come up with two contradictory propositions means you have misunderstood the intents of the author. Therefore you have not understood correctly. By definition of the axioms you are wrong.
But St John asserts one is true, while the Synoptics assert the
other is true.
This is a violation of 1. according to your world view, because it
entails that 2. is false.
Nemesio
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Your worldview does not involve the use of other rules of logic which cannot be deduced from 1.?
By 2., do you mean something like 'Those things are true which can be deduced by applying 1. to God's revelation?'
[/b]
Not sure what you mean by the first question. I suppose until someone can show me how the "rules" of logic can be deduced from the laws of logic - I'll say I agree with Aristotelian rules of inference.
Your three rules in 1. are insufficient to do everything a propositional calculus can.
Yes, that's seems to say it. It's an epistemological means of testing propositional knowledge to see if it is justifiably true. It makes God's knowledge the foundation for man's knowledge.
Do you accept that, at a given time, an individual can only reason from the intersection of his own knowledge with God's?
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioLet me save you the trouble of wasting your time. Arguing that the Scripture contains contradictions is like arguing the Hyperbolic Geometry is wrong. The axiom of that Scripture is the Word of God precludes there being any contradictions - so only non-contradictory propositions can be members of Scriptural propositions. One way to test to see if a proposition is scripture is it can not contradict scripture. You do not prove you axioms, you prove things from your axioms - that how all logical systems work.
But St John asserts one is true, while the Synoptics assert the
other is true.
This is a violation of 1. according to your world view, because it
entails that 2. is false.
Nemesio
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiWell, then something is wrong: Jesus was crucified before the Seder
Let me save you the trouble of wasting your time. Arguing that the Scripture contains contradictions is like arguing the Hyperbolic Geometry is wrong. The axiom of that Scripture is the Word of God precludes there being any contradictions - so only non-contradictory propositions can be members of Scriptural propositions. One way to test to see if a propos ...[text shortened]... do not prove you axioms, you prove things from your axioms - that how all logical systems work.
in St John and after it in the Synoptics. Of this there cannot be
any debate.
This is a contradiction by all accounts and, thus, you have some
explaining to do.
Nemesio
03 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiThis is not the case.
The axiom of that Scripture is the Word of God precludes there being any contradictions
It might be if you had an additional axiom that the Word of God contains no contradictions.
But the mere fact that propositions follow from axioms does not preclude contradictions among them. It is possible for this to arise when the axioms themeselves are inconsistent. And, lo and behold, that is exactly a property of the axioms that you say constitutue your world view.
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesyour analogy is false
This is not the case.
It might be if you had an additional axiom that the Word of God contains no contradictions.
But the mere fact that propositions follow from axioms does not preclude contradictions among them. It is possible for this to arise when the axioms themeselves are inconsistent. And, lo and behold, that is exactly a property of the axioms that you say constitutue your world view.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
03 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet's see.
This is not the case.
It might be if you had an additional axiom that the Word of God contains no contradictions.
But the mere fact that propositions follow from axioms does not preclude contradictions among them. It is possible for this to arise when the axioms themeselves are inconsistent. And, lo and behold, that is exactly a property of the axioms that you say constitutue your world view.
God is by definition omniscient. He can not know any thing that is not true. By definition of true, a true proposition can not contradict another true proposition. Therefore - God's knowledge can contain no contradictory propositions. Now, God's revelation is defined as the knowledge of God revealed to man in Scripture. Since Scripture is God's knowledge revealed to man by God, and God's knowledge can not contain any contradictions, then Scripture can not contain any contradictions.
Happy?
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiThere are additional axioms here:
Let's see.
God is by definition omniscient. He can not know any thing that is not true. By definition of true, a true proposition can not contradict another true proposition. Therefore - God's knowledge can contain no contradictory propositions. Now, God's revelation is defined as the knowledge of God revealed to man in Scripture. Since Scripture ...[text shortened]... can not contain any contradictions, then Scripture can not contain any contradictions.
Happy?
God is omniscient.
God never dissembles.
03 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiI don't know why I even try.
Let's see.
God is by definition omniscient. He can not know any thing that is not true. By definition of true, a true proposition can not contradict another true proposition. Therefore - God's knowledge can contain no contradictory propositions. Now, God's revelation is defined as the knowledge of God revealed to man in Scripture. Since Scripture ...[text shortened]... can not contain any contradictions, then Scripture can not contain any contradictions.
Happy?
03 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThat's right, this must be stated as an axiom, because otherwise, I can validly deduce from the contradictions in the Bible that God is not omniscient (as well as any other proposition that I want to deduce.)
There are additional axioms here:
God is omniscient.
03 Dec 05
4 edits
I'm going to dinner. While I'm gone, as a demonstration of your mastery of Christian Logic, provide a proof, or even an explanation, of why any proposition may be validly deduced from a contradiction. I'm not convinced that you can do it, so it will be a worthwhile endeavor for you to try to figure it out. I'll be back to check your progress in a couple hours.
Hint: Stating "from a contradiction, anything follows" is not a proof or explanation, so don't go dig that up at Christian Logic and repost it here.