Law of not contradiction

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Do you accept that 'truth' (being what it is) could be that God does 'not' exist and that by asserting God 'does' exist you are yourself proffering a contradiction?

I accept that truth, will be true for everyone at all times, in all places and so on. So if pick your truth, if it is true it will be truth for everyone. If you are taller than 6 foot, you will be taller than 6 foot no matter what time or place anyone ever was, is, and will be. If you are cold in your living room today, that will be true for everyone no matter when and where they are that "you were cold in your living room today." and every thing real and true will be no different. What is true, is true no matter what we say or think about it. Including God, the reality about God will not change no matter what we say or think about Him.

A "could be" statement is not a truth statement.
This type of statement is simply hedging one's bets, it is only making the claim that the answer could be yes, or no.
God is real is a truth statement.
God is not real is a truth statement.

@kellyjay said
A "could be" statement is not a truth statement.
This type of statement is simply hedging one's bets, it is only making the claim that the answer could be yes, or no.
God is real is a truth statement.
God is not real is a truth statement.

If Ghost of a Duke is "hedging his bets" when he uses the word "could", do you then accept you are "betting" when you make your "truth statements"

@fmf said
Did you contradict yourself in the OP you deleted?

Yes, no he did.

@kellyjay said
I accept that truth, will be true for everyone at all times, in all places and so on. So if pick your truth, if it is true it will be truth for everyone. If you are taller than 6 foot, you will be taller than 6 foot no matter what time or place anyone ever was, is, and will be. If you are cold in your living room today, that will be true for everyone no matter when and where ...[text shortened]... nswer could be yes, or no.
God is real is a truth statement.
God is not real is a truth statement.

The 'could' was out of politeness, but I am more than happy to make the truth statement 'God is not real.'

I accept that both of our truth statements can not be correct, so on the grounds of reasonable thought it has to be concluded that your own truth statement is erroneous. (Contrary as it is to everything we know about the universe).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The 'could' was out of politeness, but I am more than happy to make the truth statement 'God is not real.'

I accept that both of our truth statements can not be correct, so on the grounds of reasonable thought it has to be concluded that your own truth statement is erroneous. (Contrary as it is to everything we know about the universe).

Agree both statements cannot be correct as long as they are talking about the same thing! Meaning if someone has something in mind that they call god, and the claim is that, that god is not real, that does not change anything that God who is real, because they are not talking about the same one.

Truth again goes back to its reference point, so if someone comes along and says that this god is not real, then starts naming off reasons that 'god' is not real, does not alter if God is real. If god is simply something between our ears, we can discuss the reality of our thoughts about our gods all day long.

The only God that matters is the one that was, is, and always will be the everlasting one.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The 'could' was out of politeness, but I am more than happy to make the truth statement 'God is not real.'

I accept that both of our truth statements can not be correct, so on the grounds of reasonable thought it has to be concluded that your own truth statement is erroneous. (Contrary as it is to everything we know about the universe).

Concerning what we know about the universe, it shows us nothing comes from nothing; therefore, if there were ever a time where there was only nothing, that would be it; nothing comes out of nothing.

We also see everything has a cause in this universe since that is true; the creation of this universe had to come from a cause outside of itself; it cannot create itself.

We can have C causes U, but we cannot have U causes U.

@fmf said
dj2becker has posted what feels like 5,000 times about it.

Too bad, this is KellyJay's thread.

He should explain himself fully.

I still don't get what he means by a "law of non-contradiction".

So far, this seems a thread about nothing, as an OP was never presented to discuss.

@suzianne said
Too bad, this is KellyJay's thread.

He should explain himself fully.

I still don't get what he means by a "law of non-contradiction".

So far, this seems a thread about nothing, as an OP was never presented to discuss.

Ask if I am unclear at any time for anything I say.

We know something is not true if it contradicts itself, or falls apart in reality.
Common examples used by others.
I cannot write in English; my English writing shows the statement false.
The truth will not contradict itself; it cannot. We cannot say there is no such thing as truth, because that is a truth statement.

A truth statement that falls apart on itself is in contradiction; therefore, it is not true. There is no such thing as truth as a statement means if true, then there is no such thing as truth, but if true means there is, making that statement a contradiction with itself.

@dj2becker said
This is the same ripcord you have used multiple times. Well played FMF. 👏

You use of the word “ripcord” is stollen from FMF in your exchanges with him as the troll @fetchmyjunk.

@kellyjay said
There is no such thing as truth as a statement means if true, then there is no such thing as truth, but if true means there is, making that statement a contradiction with itself.

There is no such thing as truth

Who says this?

@divegeester said
You use of the word “ripcord” is stollen from FMF in your exchanges with him as the troll @fetchmyjunk.

Yes, as Fetchmyjunk, dj2becker's "ripcord" was to start posting as if he had not read anything that had previously been said in conversation and then declare himself the 'winner' if I declined to repeat myself. "Well if it was important, surely you'd repeat yourself?" etc. It signalled that 'discussing in good faith' was at an end. I called it his "ripcord".

@suzianne said
Too bad, this is KellyJay's thread.

He should explain himself fully.

I still don't get what he means by a "law of non-contradiction".

So far, this seems a thread about nothing, as an OP was never presented to discuss.

Incase what you are asking about is why does this matter, it matters with all truth claims made by everyone. If it falls apart on its face, because of contradiction it can be written off as not true.

@kellyjay said
Incase what you are asking about is why does this matter, it matters with all truth claims made by everyone. If it falls apart on its face, because of contradiction it can be written off as not true.

"Truth claims" about supernatural/divine matters that are immune to empirical scrutiny, and which are therefore subjective in nature, and which will supposedly only be "known" when one dies, and which therefore are, for all intents and purposes, only speculative [and perhaps aspirational] while we are still alive, are not "truth claims" in the ordinary sense of the word. What they amount to, instead, are assertions of faith.

@kellyjay said
If it falls apart on its face, because of contradiction it can be written off as not true.

What "contradiction"?

@fmf said
Yes, as Fetchmyjunk, dj2becker's "ripcord" was to start posting as if he had not read anything that had previously been said in conversation and then declare himself the 'winner' if I declined to repeat myself. "Well if it was important, surely you'd repeat yourself?" etc. It signalled that 'discussing in good faith' was at an end. I called it his "ripcord".

I have never declared myself a winner of anything here. Seems lying just comes naturally for you.