Proof of God, Continued

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Pat, you’re really still wrong. The only way you can be correct is if you rule out the possibility that the thing was uncaused. Until you can do that you are deductively and formally invalid.
[/quote]
The very act of questioning the causal properties of a thing means that you are not discussing something uncaused. Something uncaused does not have any causal properties to even question.
The most important point here is that nobody seems to understand the implications of what an uncaused entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. This is crucial, unless you understand that, you will not understand the rest.
[/quote]

Irrelevant, is the answer. If something exists and is uncaused, and IF as you say you cannot even discuss its lack of causal properties (which is not proper), then it can not cause anything either and thus becomes irrelevant. Not exactly the outcome you were hoping for, to make God irrelevant? Because by your logic if God exists and is uncaused, he is unable to cause anything either.

If, on the other hand, an uncaused thing is able to cause, then you tacitly admit that it has at least one causal property and therefore that you must address the possibility it has more than one causal property. Then I am correct and you must defend your original argument against smh, which you have failed to do. So either God is irrelevant or you must address the point.

If irrelevant is not the answer to your question, then please say what is. I tire of the guessing game and I’m not even part of it.

[quote][quote]
If I say “for any set of 5 numbers between 1-100, inclusive, the following properties are true: a,b,c,d” and somebody brings up number 101, or a set of 6 numbers, then my argument is still valid because it defines its domain as being any 5 numbers in the set of 1-100.

However, if I say that “for any number, a,b,c,d are true” then I must defend it against all numbers real, imaginary, rational, irrational, ordinal/non-ordinal, integer/noninteger, etc. If it fails ANY defense, the argument is invalid.
[/quote]
In your example, you demonstrate the problem well. No other numbers or properties are relevent to the numerical set or it’s properties. No other numbers or properties could invalidate it. The only thing that could is if the properties are false or the numerical set is somehow false. a,b,c, or d could be true for other numbers, but a,b,c,and d could not be true for anything other than 5 numbers between 1-100.
[/quote]

You are incorrect. This is not true. It does not mean NO other set of 5 numbers exist for which a,b,c and d are true. That can very well be possible, and in math a lot of that happens. What it means is for ALL numbers between 1-100 inclusive, with no exceptions. It does not preclude the possibility that a set of 5 numbers some or all of which lie outside the range 1-100 also has a,b,c,d hold true.

402

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To drive the point home, consider this:

Is it true, or is it false, that the man who was does not own a car does not own a Lexus? The proposition has a subject, a predicate, and a truth value. What is that truth value? Is it true, or is it false?

I am asking you this question and I expect a response. I responded to your question, now respond to this. And yes, it is ludicrously intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to answer this very simple question. I hope you see that if you stamp your feet and plug your ears, you lose this whole endeavor completely and spectacularly.

So, what is the answer?[/quote]

I finally found the fallacy that this is. It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy. I knew the damn thing had a name. You are countering with a fallacious contradictory statement. You cannot assess it’s truth or falsehood since it is fallacious to start with. Hence, you counter claim is false.
[/quote]

Internal contradiction is when 2 parts of a premise cannot both be true at the same time. What are those 2 parts in this case?

If A
If B
Then… you can never get here since A and B can’t both be true.

403

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You know what, I’ve changed my mind. I’m going to answer my questions and put this to rest, because this debate has taken a turn for the absurd and I gain nothing from arguing over whether the sky is blue or orange.

  1. It is true that the man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus. It is always , no matter what, unequivocally, in every possible situation a true logical proposition. He does not own a Lexus–because a Lexus is a car, and if he doesn’t own a car, he can’t…you know…own a car. It’s true. There is no way around this. There is no room for waffling or dancing around or equivocating. It is simply true. To deny this is absurd and, frankly, anyone who does deny it is being disingenuous.
    [/quote]
    It’s a logical contradiction. There is no way around that, period. It may be true statement, but it is not logical.

[quote]
2. By exactly the same token, it is true that uncaused entity X did not cause itself. Again, this is always , no matter what, unequivocally, in every possible situation a true logical proposition. It cannot be anything else. This is not an opinion, it is not controversial in the slightest, and it is not up for debate. It simply is.

  1. From there, we see that your premises 1, 2, and 3 are all satisfied and yet your conclusion is not true (false) . This, for the last time, is the very definition of an invalid logical argument. This, too, is not a controversial or debatable proposition.

  2. Which is consistent with my initial premise–that you would not offer a proof of God’s existence that did not rely on fallacy or assumption.

So, the debate is settled so far as I’m concerned, and if you don’t accept that then that doesn’t concern me enough to justify my doubling back around for yet another trip around the old circle. This is my last post in the thread. Nothing I’ve said here is controversial, and all of it can easily be verified if you wish to do so.

I am frankly disappointed that you ended up clinging to nonsense rather than admit your loss. We could have been delving deeper all this time, but instead you were arguing (over the course of tens of thousands of words) a point which you were told again and again by many people was flatly wrong–and told why. That said, I regret that things became heated, and I bear you no ill will on a personal level. These debates can very easily become passionate, and if I seem to be merciless in my negative characterization of your argument, I hope you understand that that negativity stops where you, as a person, begin.

Anyway, thanks for the many hours of debate. Until next time.[/quote]

I didn’t lose, you arguing a logical fallacy which is your loss by default. You’re disappointed I wouldn’t cave into absurd logic. If you think that posit logical fallacies as vaild objections to arguments is not going to serve you well.
You can call me names, you can declare all the victories you want, it won’t change the one very important fact. I am on the correct side of the logic and you are not. No amount of feet stomping is going to change that.

404

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Pat, you’re really still wrong. The only way you can be correct is if you rule out the possibility that the thing was uncaused. Until you can do that you are deductively and formally invalid.
[/quote]
The very act of questioning the causal properties of a thing means that you are not discussing something uncaused. Something uncaused does not have any causal properties to even question.
The most important point here is that nobody seems to understand the implications of what an uncaused entity must be to both exist and be uncaused. This is crucial, unless you understand that, you will not understand the rest.
[/quote]

Irrelevant, is the answer. If something exists and is uncaused, and IF as you say you cannot even discuss its lack of causal properties (which is not proper), then it can not cause anything either and thus becomes irrelevant. Not exactly the outcome you were hoping for, to make God irrelevant? Because by your logic if God exists and is uncaused, he is unable to cause anything either.
[/quote]
I don’t see how you made this jump? Discussing properties something does not have is irrelevant, therefore the thing that does not have the property is irrelevant? That makes no sense.
What smh is arguing is a contradiction. It took me a while to find it because I could not remember the name it’s called an Internal Contradiction Fallacy. It deals precisely with contradictory statements. ‘Joe doesn’t own a car, he does not own a lexus.’ is a prime example of the fallacy. As is ‘something has not cause, therefore it did not cause itself’ is a contradictory statement. It logically fallicious and that’s why the criticism is invalid.
It has nothing to do with the relevance of God, hell we never got that far. We were just dealing with caused, vs. uncaused beings. I listed out 4 very strong reasons why the criticism is invalid.
The objection being irrelevant, because its a logical fallacy does not make a topic we haven’t even gotten to yet irrelevent in itself. The objection is irrelevent because it’s a fallacy. Not said ‘Uncaused-cause’

I am not going to accept ‘defeat’ on the basis of a logical fallacy. I don’t care who likes it, it’s not going to happen. I have to go where the logic takes me. I am not going to say ‘Hey your fallacy is a good point.’ No, it’s not. It’s fallacious and hence false. I was willing to let it go, but I won’t tolerate being belittled and called names because somebody presented a contradiction that sounds good. It’s still a contradiction and is false.

I will accept a criticism that does not violate logic.

I address this very topic/ question on page 1 of the tread, posted ‘01-21-2014, 09:58 AM’ ← Presuming you are EST. If you would like to discuss it in more detail, I would be happy to.

In your example, you demonstrate the problem well. No other numbers or properties are relevent to the numerical set or it’s properties. No other numbers or properties could invalidate it. The only thing that could is if the properties are false or the numerical set is somehow false. a,b,c, or d could be true for other numbers, but a,b,c,and d could not be true for anything other than 5 numbers between 1-100.
[/quote]

You are incorrect. This is not true. It does not mean NO other set of 5 numbers exist for which a,b,c and d are true. That can very well be possible, and in math a lot of that happens. What it means is for ALL numbers between 1-100 inclusive, with no exceptions. It does not preclude the possibility that a set of 5 numbers some or all of which lie outside the range 1-100 also has a,b,c,d hold true.
[/quote]

I don’t think I said that, exactly, but can you drill down on it a little more? Are you saying the same a,b,c,d, to the exception of other variables, i.e., only a,b,c,d is true for a set of any 5 numbers between 1-100 inclusive, with no exceptions. And a,b,c,d, to the exception of all other variables can be true for a set of numbers outside the range of 1-100.
I am not saying that two (or more) things cannot share a set of properties. But two things cannot share a mutually exclusive set of properties. I.E, where the set of properties can only have the one result. Not a set of properties that can be shared among several potential results. That may be true, but I am concerned with properties when taken together resulting in one conclusion to the exclusion of all others. If the set of properties is open ended, it’s not sufficient to draw a conclusion from exclusively.
What additionally would be require to make a,b,c,d only be a set of 5 numbers between 1-100, to the exclusion of all numbers outside the range?
I understand a,b,c,d, can be ‘this’ or ‘that’. What would make a,b,c,d only ‘this’?

405

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To drive the point home, consider this:

Is it true, or is it false, that the man who was does not own a car does not own a Lexus? The proposition has a subject, a predicate, and a truth value. What is that truth value? Is it true, or is it false?

I am asking you this question and I expect a response. I responded to your question, now respond to this. And yes, it is ludicrously intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to answer this very simple question. I hope you see that if you stamp your feet and plug your ears, you lose this whole endeavor completely and spectacularly.

So, what is the answer?[/quote]

I finally found the fallacy that this is. It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy. I knew the damn thing had a name. You are countering with a fallacious contradictory statement. You cannot assess it’s truth or falsehood since it is fallacious to start with. Hence, you counter claim is false.
[/quote]

Internal contradiction is when 2 parts of a premise cannot both be true at the same time. What are those 2 parts in this case?

If A
If B
Then… you can never get here since A and B can’t both be true.[/quote]

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction

From the link:

"Internal Contradiction:
saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”
This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”

This is related to Inconsistency."

406

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction

"saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”

This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”

This is related to Inconsistency. "

Pat, I’m not sure if you interpreted the Internal Contradiction fallacy correctly.

It would have to read “the man does not own a car, he owns a Lexus” would be a contradiction.

407

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction

"saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”

This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”

This is related to Inconsistency. "

Pat, I’m not sure if you interpreted the Internal Contradiction fallacy correctly.

It would have to read “the man does not own a car, he owns a Lexus” would be a contradiction. [/quote]

Precisely correct.

The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus is so ridiculously far from an internally contradictive proposition that I almost can’t believe I’m explaining this. An internally contradictive proposition would be: The man who does not own a car does own a Lexus–my original proposition’s antipode.

The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus is a plainly valid proposition with a subject, predicate, and truth value.

…Which is why the conversation between Pat and I has ended: Because he has, after thousands of words, resorted to taking stabs in the dark, and I am not going to re-explain the basic rules of classical logic. An invalid argument is one whose conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises; his conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises; his argument is invalid. A debate about “proofs” of God cannot happen if one party does not understand the fundamentals of the discussion.

408

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=eta1&_r=0

For anyone who is interested in the larger question, rather than the pointless quibbles about introductory logic. This was published just a day or two ago. He is a prominent philosopher and a very devout Christian. An excerpt:

Emphasis, of course, added. The argument he provides is a horrible one, but some of the arguments he deals with in his books and essays are good. He spends a lot of time on a slight variation of the one offered up by Kamui. Of course, he concludes that it is not a proof–because it isn’t, because none exists, which has been my contention from the outset of this.

409

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To drive the point home, consider this:

Is it true, or is it false, that the man who was does not own a car does not own a Lexus? The proposition has a subject, a predicate, and a truth value. What is that truth value? Is it true, or is it false?

I am asking you this question and I expect a response. I responded to your question, now respond to this. And yes, it is ludicrously intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to answer this very simple question. I hope you see that if you stamp your feet and plug your ears, you lose this whole endeavor completely and spectacularly.

So, what is the answer?[/quote]

I finally found the fallacy that this is. It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy. I knew the damn thing had a name. You are countering with a fallacious contradictory statement. You cannot assess it’s truth or falsehood since it is fallacious to start with. Hence, you counter claim is false.
[/quote]

Internal contradiction is when 2 parts of a premise cannot both be true at the same time. What are those 2 parts in this case?

If A
If B
Then… you can never get here since A and B can’t both be true.[/quote]

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction

From the link:

"Internal Contradiction:
saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”
This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”

This is related to Inconsistency."
[/quote]

You need a basic lesson in logic since your skills seem to be deteriorating as this thread goes on. As you can see using truth tables your example is not equivalent so its not a internal contradiction.

P = I never borrowed car
Q = car had dent when I got it

P & Q = False
P & ~Q = False
~P & Q = False
~P & ~Q = False

P = does not own a car
Q = does not own a Lexus

P & Q = True
P & ~Q = False
~P & Q = False
~P & ~Q = False

410

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=eta1&_r=0

For anyone who is interested in the larger question, rather than the pointless quibbles about introductory logic. This was published just a day or two ago. He is a prominent philosopher and a very devout Christian. An excerpt:

Emphasis, of course, added. The argument he provides is a horrible one, but some of the arguments he deals with in his books and essays are good. He spends a lot of time on a slight variation of the one offered up by Kamui. Of course, he concludes that it is not a proof–because it isn’t, because none exists, which has been my contention from the outset of this.[/quote]

I remember suggesting you read Plantinga’s works in one of the other threads on the existence of God, and I was pretty excited to see him appear as the subject of this NY Times article you just posted. I’ll reiterate I really think you should read him, he is extraordinarily sharp, this interview aside (you said you disliked this argument very much, which I presume to be referring to the “fine tuning” one, although I maintain that trying to present ANY argument in a space as limited as the Times is futile at best and at worst counterproductive to serious presentation). I don’t think the APA allows dull philosophers to be president lol.

411

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s a logical contradiction. There is no way around that, period. It may be true statement, but it is not logical.
[/quote]

I said I wouldn’t post to you again, but I’m making an exception here because you’ve actually proved me right beyond the possibility of doubt in this post. It is abundantly clear, Pat, that you do not know how to “do” classical logic. You keep saying things that are utterly nonsensical–things that are clearly explained as such within the first few pages of every logic textbook on the market.

Here’s why I say this. Take a look at the two underlined portions above. You wrote both of them. Then consider this:

If a proposition is true, it cannot be logically contradictory. [u]By definition[/u]. Here is the first Google hit, of many, that affirms this, taken from a university professor’s Intro to Logic resource:

http://people.hofstra.edu/stefan_waner/RealWorld/logic/logic2.html

This–this right here–is proof positive that you have literally abandoned any pretense of cogency and are simply making things up and saying them. You say that “it is logically contradictory, but it may be true”… No. In no possible world. Never.

[In fact, you have contradicted yourself in trying to make your argument by saying that the statement is contradictory but may be true. I hope the irony occurs to you.]

The statement is true. The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus. It is true–he doesn’t own a Lexus, because a Lexus is a car, and he doesn’t own a car. If it weren’t true, then the man who does not own a car would own a Lexus–which is a car.

In sum (and as everyone has explained to you), there isn’t an internal logical contradiction within a thousand miles of the proposition that The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus. That is a true logical proposition, and nothing more. You have abandoned intellectual honesty and philosophical rigor in favor of staving off a loss that has already been recorded in the books. If this seems harsh, consider that I’ve been pounding away at this very simple point for pages and pages now, and consider further that you are an intelligent person and therefore must be capable of understanding all of this (it’s drilled into the heads of college freshmen every September and January, after all). Which in turn means that you’re purposefully scrambling yourself up because of–of all things, in a thread about God–pride.

The conclusion of this argument is now plain and etched in stone–not that it wasn’t before I wrote this post up–and I hope that you will take a step back, look your arguments over, do some reading, and see that philosophy is not the kind of thing that can be fudged or faked or winged.

412

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=eta1&_r=0

For anyone who is interested in the larger question, rather than the pointless quibbles about introductory logic. This was published just a day or two ago. He is a prominent philosopher and a very devout Christian. An excerpt:

Emphasis, of course, added. The argument he provides is a horrible one, but some of the arguments he deals with in his books and essays are good. He spends a lot of time on a slight variation of the one offered up by Kamui. Of course, he concludes that it is not a proof–because it isn’t, because none exists, which has been my contention from the outset of this.[/quote]

I remember suggesting you read Plantinga’s works in one of the other threads on the existence of God, and I was pretty excited to see him appear as the subject of this NY Times article you just posted. I’ll reiterate I really think you should read him, he is extraordinarily sharp, this interview aside (you said you disliked this argument very much, which I presume to be referring to the “fine tuning” one, although I maintain that trying to present ANY argument in a space as limited as the Times is futile at best and at worst counterproductive to serious presentation). I don’t think the APA allows dull philosophers to be president lol.[/quote]

Indeed, I had not realized that I read a few essays that he wrote back in college (college is a little hazy, know what I mean?). I actually ordered Warranted Christian Belief this morning after reading the piece.

Regarding the fine-tuning thing, I don’t fault him for it–he didn’t come up with it, after all–but I find that particular argument to be among the weakest offered by serious theist philosophers, for reasons that I’d be happy to go into if you happen to be interested in or convinced by that argument.

413

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&emc=eta1&_r=0

For anyone who is interested in the larger question, rather than the pointless quibbles about introductory logic. This was published just a day or two ago. He is a prominent philosopher and a very devout Christian. An excerpt:

Emphasis, of course, added. The argument he provides is a horrible one, but some of the arguments he deals with in his books and essays are good. He spends a lot of time on a slight variation of the one offered up by Kamui. Of course, he concludes that it is not a proof–because it isn’t, because none exists, which has been my contention from the outset of this.[/quote]

I remember suggesting you read Plantinga’s works in one of the other threads on the existence of God, and I was pretty excited to see him appear as the subject of this NY Times article you just posted. I’ll reiterate I really think you should read him, he is extraordinarily sharp, this interview aside (you said you disliked this argument very much, which I presume to be referring to the “fine tuning” one, although I maintain that trying to present ANY argument in a space as limited as the Times is futile at best and at worst counterproductive to serious presentation). I don’t think the APA allows dull philosophers to be president lol.[/quote]

Indeed, I had not realized that I read a few essays that he wrote back in college (college is a little hazy, know what I mean?). I actually ordered Warranted Christian Belief this morning after reading the piece.

Regarding the fine-tuning thing, I don’t fault him for it–he didn’t come up with it, after all–but I find that particular argument to be among the weakest offered by serious theist philosophers, for reasons that I’d be happy to go into if you happen to be interested in or convinced by that argument.[/quote]

Warranted Christian Belief is indeed a good one. I find one very interesting book is called “God and Other Minds” which he touches on very briefly in the Times article, and which is a very in depth book I think you will find extremely valuable. It was a new idea to consider when I first heard about it but I find it a very interesting argument.

Not particularly interested in that specific fine tuning, no. I enjoy the subject however, after introductory logic at least ;). I found myself immensely frustrated and disillusioned with the comments section of the article (as always). Although I had hoped that more rational and incisive people would be reading the Times it seems not one of them showed up to comment after the article, which I thought was a stretch for the Times but a good read and fairly substantive for such an extremely limited format.

As always, the peanut gallery misses the point of the article and everything Plantinga was saying.

414

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I found myself immensely frustrated and disillusioned with the comments section of the article (as always). Although I had hoped that more rational and incisive people would be reading the Times it seems not one of them showed up to comment after the article, which I thought was a stretch for the Times but a good read and fairly substantive for such an extremely limited format.

As always, the peanut gallery misses the point of the article and everything Plantinga was saying.[/quote]

Good observation. I just looked them over. One good one for every four or five stupid ones.

Though, in the Times’ defense, I think you have to apply a curve to comments on the internet by assuming that the shittiest and worst readers are the ones who are leaving most of the comments. (Otherwise–if comments are accurate reflections of the character of the typical human–we’re all fucked). By this standard, a website with overt racism and puns that turn politicians’ last names into the word “shit” or one of its many synonyms–Breitbart,for example–is probably read, at the median, by your average, run-of-the-mill dude. Maybe a little racist, maybe a little sexist, neither stupid nor highly educated. Whereas sites like the WSJ and the NYT are curved up from “pretty dumb” comments to, on average, a highly decent and at least moderately intelligent readership.

Regarding the article, I liked it. And I really like the Stone. Of course, as you said, the space is never going to nourish an in-depth treatment. But with Huffpost running story after story about Kim K’s ass or whatever the hell they do over there, I’ll take what I can get from the Times.

415

Not that I mind Kim K’s ass, mind you.

416

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not that I mind Kim K’s ass, mind you.[/quote]

No, no. It’s just everything else you have to take with it.

Talk about the worst bait/switch ever.

417

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction

"saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”

This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”

This is related to Inconsistency. "

Pat, I’m not sure if you interpreted the Internal Contradiction fallacy correctly.

It would have to read “the man does not own a car, he owns a Lexus” would be a contradiction. [/quote]

Precisely correct.

The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus is so ridiculously far from an internally contradictive proposition that I almost can’t believe I’m explaining this. An internally contradictive proposition would be: The man who does not own a car does own a Lexus–my original proposition’s antipode.

The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus is a plainly valid proposition with a subject, predicate, and truth value.

…Which is why the conversation between Pat and I has ended: Because he has, after thousands of words, resorted to taking stabs in the dark, and I am not going to re-explain the basic rules of classical logic. An invalid argument is one whose conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises; his conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises; his argument is invalid. A debate about “proofs” of God cannot happen if one party does not understand the fundamentals of the discussion.[/quote]

Because you are arguing a fallacy, which in classical logic is by default a false accusation. Get over it.

418

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, an internal contradiction describes two held propositions that cannot both be true. There is no internal contradiction within a hundred miles of this.

This kind of nonsense is what I’m talking about. You need to absorb the fundamentals of this discipline. That is all.[/quote]

Really:
Internal Contradiction:
saying two contradictory things in the same argument. For example, claiming that Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur with hoaxed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a “true bird”. Or another author who said on page 59, “Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.” But on page 200 we find “Sir Arthur’s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 25, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic…”
This is much like saying “I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.”

Looks familiar.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#contradiction

Need more?

The idea or arguing a proposition about something it does not have is a contradiction, period.

419

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
To drive the point home, consider this:

Is it true, or is it false, that the man who was does not own a car does not own a Lexus? The proposition has a subject, a predicate, and a truth value. What is that truth value? Is it true, or is it false?

I am asking you this question and I expect a response. I responded to your question, now respond to this. And yes, it is ludicrously intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to answer this very simple question. I hope you see that if you stamp your feet and plug your ears, you lose this whole endeavor completely and spectacularly.

So, what is the answer?[/quote]

I finally found the fallacy that this is. It’s called Internal Contradiction Fallacy. I knew the damn thing had a name. You are countering with a fallacious contradictory statement. You cannot assess it’s truth or falsehood since it is fallacious to start with. Hence, you counter claim is false.
[/quote]

Internal contradiction is when 2 parts of a premise cannot both be true at the same time. What are those 2 parts in this case?

If A
If B
Then… you can never get here since A and B can’t both be true.[/quote]

Correct, but it comes in more forms. If johnny does not own a car, it’s a contradiction to propose the kind of car he does not own. He doesn’t own any car, so talking about a car he does not own is a contradiction.

420

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It’s a logical contradiction. There is no way around that, period. It may be true statement, but it is not logical.
[/quote]

I said I wouldn’t post to you again, but I’m making an exception here because you’ve actually proved me right beyond the possibility of doubt in this post. It is abundantly clear, Pat, that you do not know how to “do” classical logic. You keep saying things that are utterly nonsensical–things that are clearly explained as such within the first few pages of every logic textbook on the market.

Here’s why I say this. Take a look at the two underlined portions above. You wrote both of them. Then consider this:

If a proposition is true, it cannot be logically contradictory. [u]By definition[/u]. Here is the first Google hit, of many, that affirms this, taken from a university professor’s Intro to Logic resource:

http://people.hofstra.edu/stefan_waner/RealWorld/logic/logic2.html

This–this right here–is proof positive that you have literally abandoned any pretense of cogency and are simply making things up and saying them. You say that “it is logically contradictory, but it may be true”… No. In no possible world. Never.

[In fact, you have contradicted yourself in trying to make your argument by saying that the statement is contradictory but may be true. I hope the irony occurs to you.]

The statement is true. The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus. It is true–he doesn’t own a Lexus, because a Lexus is a car, and he doesn’t own a car. If it weren’t true, then the man who does not own a car would own a Lexus–which is a car.

In sum (and as everyone has explained to you), there isn’t an internal logical contradiction within a thousand miles of the proposition that The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus. That is a true logical proposition, and nothing more. You have abandoned intellectual honesty and philosophical rigor in favor of staving off a loss that has already been recorded in the books. If this seems harsh, consider that I’ve been pounding away at this very simple point for pages and pages now, and consider further that you are an intelligent person and therefore must be capable of understanding all of this (it’s drilled into the heads of college freshmen every September and January, after all). Which in turn means that you’re purposefully scrambling yourself up because of–of all things, in a thread about God–pride.

The conclusion of this argument is now plain and etched in stone–not that it wasn’t before I wrote this post up–and I hope that you will take a step back, look your arguments over, do some reading, and see that philosophy is not the kind of thing that can be fudged or faked or winged.[/quote]

LOL! That’s just sad. You have been pounding away at a logical fallacy for pages. It’s not me who needs training. I already have gotten that with paper in hand.

Logical fallacies need not be false statements. They are just logically fallacious. Thee’s a difference. And if you are making a logically fallacious statement, it cannot be taken as an objection to anything. You are massacring poor Aristotle who discovered these basic logical axioms.
You have countered with nothing but fallacies. You the one who needs to go back to school. You are the one who does not grasp very basic concepts of logic. You’re the one who is failing, but keep congratulating yourself. You have mastered applying fallacy to age old questions that have been settled centuries ago.
If you were really trained in philosophy you would have already known that and never even entertained such silly notions.