Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
A Little Treasure From Alan

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Aurino Souza on April 9, 2002 13:30:05 UTC


I found this some posts below:

I stand by the claim that it is true by definition that something cannot exist and not exist. If there is a LACK of clarity then the matter to be resolved is one of clarity and error margins. It does not alter the truth of the law of non-contradiction.

...Any "contradictory" elements occuring in a not-fully-clarified scenario do not breach the law-of-non-contradiction, as those "contradictions" are pseudo and not real. Real contradictions are impossible by definition.

...I contend that their attempts to circumvent the law of non-contradiction can be easily defeated!

...But I don't think you need to downgrade to "belief" status your acceptance of non-contradiction; I think you or I or anyone can defeat anyone who tries to refute that law (perhaps unless the logician one tackles gets so bogged-down in jargon that one cannot be bothered unravelling it all!).

Funny thing is; to defeat the logician one would have to show he was contradicting himself! He would then go round in circles saying he was allowed to do that. So he cannot be refuted. But he can die! That's why I said the earlier comment; if people want to fool themselves, it is they who do it, and they who bear the consequences. So the responsibility of dealing with that law is for each of us to face himself. But I don't mean to be preachy; its just that there is a responsibility for each one of us to get real and not kid ourselves, including those puzzling logicians!

Hope I don't sound too terse or anything.

For what it's worth, Alan, that's amazing stuff! Now all you have to do is try and understand where that "law of non-contradiction" comes from, then you'll have understood Dick's paper as well as I do (which is not much but still more than everyone else here, except perhaps Paul)

When you understand where the "law of non-contradiction" comes from, you'll also understand why it cannot be broken at all, no matter what everyone tells you. Perhaps you already understand that, it's just not clear from your posts.

Keep up the good work!


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins