Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Actor

An actual audible voice?

I'd really like an answer but that's probably asking too much.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Actually the word being defined is "law", not "contradiction". "non-contradiction" simply labels which law is being defined and is not what is being defined. (I'm not certain the statement of a law is actually a definition of that law. Whatever.)

Consider this.

Law of conservation of energy : the total energy of an isolated system is constant.

I challenge you to find any physics textbook which states this law while avoiding the use of the word energy.

By the way I have been doing some research to find who first came up with the law of non-contradiction. It was Aristotle. He came up with three different versions. Your version is not among them. You called my version the "simpleton's version". Since Aristotle came up with it Aristotle must have been a simpleton. I'm in good company.

No, what is being defined is "contradiction". "Law" is simply a "universal" principle.

And you're mixing categories in this discussion. Appealing to a law of science doesn't prove your case, especially since laws of logic transcend laws of science since the former govern how we should logically think in order to carry out fundamental activities in life such as reasoning, communication and scientific inquiry itself. Also, the statement of the law you cite assumes that the person knows what energy itself is. If the person doesn't know what energy is, then the law won't make any sense to him until he finds out. Likewise with the Law of Noncontradiction, which is precisely why the law tells us what constitutes a contradiction.

Also, I could just as easily turn around and give the definitions for the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics which don't contain the word "thermodynamics". So what is your point?

I'm well aware of Aristotle's 3 versions of the Law. And, yes, in principle he agrees with how most philosophers define the law, i.e. A thing cannot exist or not exist at the same time and in the same relationship; or A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'd really like an answer but that's probably asking too much.

Why? Why do you want an answer? To tell me that I was hallucinating?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Until you prove that God exists the question has no meaning.

None of Aristotle's statements of the principle of non-contradiction uses the word "exists".

But the subject is not God per se. The subject is causality. So...once again, if I were to say that the Law of Causality requires that everything in existence requires a cause, would you agree with this statement? And if you did agree agree with it, would not the definition also necessarily extend to God (if he exists)? And if so, wouldn't He have had to cause himself to come into existence? But since a non-existent entity has no causal power, how could this logically be possible, since he would have had to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect?

Also, let's revisit the "absolute truth" statement: If you were to say that, Absolute truth does not exist, would you consider this statement to be true or false? Simple question that requires a simple "true" or "false" answer.

Oh yeah...one other thing that nearly slipped my mind: Did Aristotle every use the term "be" in any of his definitions?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh yeah...one other thing that nearly slipped my mind: Did Aristotle every use the term "be" in any of his definitions?

Do you mean in the original Greek?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why? Why do you want an answer? To tell me that I was hallucinating?

Were you hallucinating?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, what is being defined is "contradiction". "Law" is simply a "universal" principle.

To the contrary. What is being defined (stated) is the "law of non-contradiction". "of" is a preposition. "non-contradiction" is the object of the prepositional phrase "of non-contradiction". This prepositional phrase modifies the word "law". Ergo, what is being defined (stated) is the word "law".

Simple, high school English.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, let's revisit the "absolute truth" statement: If you were to say that, Absolute truth does not exist, would you consider this statement to be true or false? Simple question that requires a simple "true" or "false" answer.

I refer you to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Do you mean in the original Greek?

In any translated language.

If I say, A cannot BE non-A at the same time and in the same sense, since this would constitute a contradiction, then wouldn't this kind of statement also be saying that "A cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense"? Is not the term "be" a form of the word "exist"? Doesn't the term "be" mean, among other things, "to have an objective existence"?

Why are you choking on a camel while trying to strain at a gnat?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I refer you to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Okay...so you would consider the statement to be false, and as such absurd and meaningless. Thank you very much for proving my point: By attempting to be cute and do an end-around run around a simple True or False answer, the answer you have given implies that you absolutely believe with all your heart, mind an soul in the absolute truth of the Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, you have just unwittingly falsified the original statement, which was: Absolute truth does not exist". Of course, you have another option: You could opt to say the Uncertainty Principle is not absolutely true, which would render your reference to it as meaningless, cognitive foolishness.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

To the contrary. What is being defined (stated) is the "law of non-contradiction". "of" is a preposition. "non-contradiction" is the object of the prepositional phrase "of non-contradiction". This prepositional phrase modifies the word "law". Ergo, what is being defined (stated) is the word "law".

Simple, high school English.

Again, the Law OF...qualifies what is being defined. Law, in a non-modified or unqualified sense is not being defined, rather it is the Law OF something specific...in this case Noncontradiction. Therefore, to understand this Law, one must define what a contradiction is in order to know if the law is being violated by any statement, phrase or proposition.

Do us a all a huge favor, Mr. Actor, give us an example of a violation of the Law of Noncontradiction. I'll be waiting with bated breath. Make it good.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If I say, A cannot BE non-A at the same time and in the same sense, since this would constitute a contradiction, then wouldn't this kind of statement also be saying that "A cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense"? Is not the term "be" a form of the word "exist"? Doesn't the term "be" mean, among other things, "to have an objective existence"?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy addresses this very issue. It says that "be" is ambiguous but that "exist" is not ambiguous. The translator chose the word "be" instead of the word "exist". Why? I do not know. I assume that in the original Greek the two words are not synonymous. But I do not speak Greek. Ask Thas.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy addresses this very issue. It says that "be" is ambiguous but that "exist" is not ambiguous. The translator chose the word "be" instead of the word "exist". Why? I do not know. I assume that in the original Greek the two words are not synonymous. But I do not speak Greek. Ask Thas.

Really? "Be" is ambiguous? How can it be ambiguous when it means "objective existence"? The following two statements are saying exactly the same thing, using different terms:

A cannot exist as non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense

Where's the ambiguity?

Oh...by the way...nothing personal, but please support your assertions with hard proof when you cite someone or some institution.

[boxcar]

Oh yeah...before I forget Mr. Wannabe grammar expert, you apparently are ignorant of the fact that sentences can have three different types of subjects. See the link below.

http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/subject.htm

The subject of a sentence will be a noun or a pronoun (including all the modifiers that go with it).

So...if I were to write:

The Law of Noncontradiction is a first principle of logic, the subject in this sentence would be Law of Noncontradiction with all its modifiers, which would be known as a complete subject. Just for your info...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...so you would consider the statement to be false, and as such absurd and meaningless.

No! I would consider it to be true but my confidence would be less than 100%. Quantum theory says the universe is fuzzy. Therefore the Law of Excluded Middle is false. Absolutely true and absolutely false do not exist, we have only probably true and probably false. Probably.