The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
Galiban
Con (against)
Losing
37 Points

Diametrically Opposing Statements (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,429 times Debate No: 6592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (13)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that diametrically opposing statements such as (A & ~A) cannot be logically resolved as true, no matter the context.

This debate stems from a statement made by our esteemed friend Galiban:

************************************
(((E ->D)^(E->C))->(A . B))

A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.
C = God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father.
D = the children of the nation are punished for the national decisions.
E = God's Justice.

To simplify.
(((C->B)^(D->A))->(A . B))
Because C and D are both true = A and B are both true.
A is true because C is true.
B is true because D is true.

Does this better explain how diametrically opposing texts can be reconciled by context?

*****************************************

It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of logic that the following two statements are diametric opposites:

A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.

Thus, they can be recatagorized as A and ~A, respectively.

Galiban's conclusion in his "logical" argument is "(A . B)" or "A and B are both true." With our above recategorization, his conclusion becomes "A and ~A are both true."

This is a logical impossibility. The conjunction is necessarily always false.

Diametrically opposing statements cannot be logically resolved as true.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

Simple Logic vs. Complex Logic. Linear thinking vs. lateral thinking.

I do realize some of the audience do not have knowledge of this field of study, but are here to learn and develop their skills in debate and logic. I am hoping to be better received with a higher character count.

I will warn everyone I will be using simple definitions that contain larger meanings but for practical purposes and character constraints some study will have to be done on its own.

What I am contending is that my opponent does not know how to apply and he does not understand the two distinctions between simple logic and complex logic.

My opponent in all of his responses is unfamiliar with complex logic or the "proofs" contained in that field of study. (Lateral thinking is the most recent word usage and most prominent on the internet). He has showed this overwhelmingly in the comments and many people have concurred with him.

I will work to show the audience and Tarzan that all of my statements (which explained the veracity of my argument through lateral thinking in no less than three different ways) that addressed this field of study are all absolutely accurate. When everyone reviews this field of study they will see that I did not "make all this up". My opponent has criticized me abusively; citing that I did not understand simple logic. However, as I directly stated to him before, there were things I understood that he did not yet and it was obvious to me that Tarzan was only thinking about the perceived inconsistency with vertical or simple logic. Hence, we now have this debate.

I will also work to show that my opponent with all of his statements in the comments has painted himself into a corner, by declaring my understanding flawed he showed he had no desire to think in complex or lateral logic and that he did not understand the difference.

I will now proceed with the explanation:
Tarzan started by assigning values to the two statements in the above arguments.

When values are assigned we have now entered into mathematics.

I will point to two types of math – Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry.
Both types of math are completely viable. They are both 100% accurate. The only downside is one form can never solve the other's proofs. Euclidean geometry has served us for thousands of years. It has allowed us to build buildings and advance our culture. However, it completely fails when applied to the curvature of outer space.

Einstein used non-euclidean geometry to "proof" the theory of relativity. However, without the curvature of outer space, non Euclidean geometry cannot work.

This same type of mathematical structure is inherent in simple logic vs. complex logic.

Simple logic (linear thinking) - assumes all values in a sentence are known values.

Complex logic (Lateral thinking) - assigns or reassigns values; it works to discern values within a statement.

We use both of them everyday but we encounter problems of communication when we use the wrong one in a conversation.

To breakdown.
http://www.folj.com...
The very concept of lateral thinking is dealing with preconceptions, or mathematically - a pre-assigned value.

The basic explanation:
Let us read this following statement:
Frank leaves home. When he tries to return, a man wearing a mask blocks his path.

At this point most if not all people have in their mind that Frank left his home and came back and there was a masked thief blocking his way.
Ultimately we have a couple of pre-assigned values in this statement when we first read it.
Home = Where frank lives.
Man wearing a mask = Thief or robber.

Now with context we can reassign a value to these two "clear" dimensions.

Baseball.

Now the whole diametric within this statement changes. Both values change.
Home = Home plate in a baseball diamond
Man wearing a mask = Catcher.

Basically in a mathematical statement to summarize this effect:
The perceived value of this statement dramatically changed with the insertion of a new value. We have two values dictated by this new value (context).

Tarzan is asserting a simple logical proof by assuming the value of the second statement as false. He is asserting that these two statements (see his above argument) are inherently opposites. I would concur. However, two opposites can co-exist and both be true. This is where Tarzan is attempting to confuse the issue.
By stating (A & ~A) can never co-exist he is attempting to prove the illogical nature of the Bible with a simple logical proof.

His logic fails in the fact that the FALSE value is ASSUMED for logical purposes. It is not necessarily a false statement. All values can be changed within a given statement as we saw with the Baseball example above.

I will use another.

I HATE YOU. I LOVE YOU.

Two diametrically opposing statements. These clearly are opposing statements. However, that does not mean they cannot co-exist with both having a "true" value.
However, what Tarzan really means though he poorly explains, is that God cannot hold to his "person" both statements with a "true" value. (God does and does not punish the children for the sins of the father)

But again I will show that God can possess both statements in the above argument as true values.

I hate you. I love you.
A 13 year old Girl possesses both these statements and both statements are true.

Resolution:
She hates her Father and loves her mother. By inserting additional values to the statement we see that both statements are true. The value of "you" changed.

To directly address the above argument we will use the statements to show a complex or "layered" proof:
God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.

We must see how the value of punish changes with two different statements:

These are the basic statements.
A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.

These are the additional values.
C = God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father.
D = the children of the nation are punished for the national decisions.

(((C->B)^(D->A))->(A . B))

We see now the value of punish has changed from:

God does punish the children for the sins of the father when they are collectively children of a nation that uniformly goes against God's will. (Defined as if one nation attacks another nation and the defending nation in their resistance kills children of the attacking nation, the children paid for the sins of the "fathers".)

To:
God does not punish the children for the sins of the father in the form of penal substitution. (Defined as some father just saying "Yeah I raped her, but my son will go to jail for me.") Just to give added context, in the cultures around the Israelites, sons could be punished for the crimes of their fathers.

We see when the one value of punishment in the "diametrically opposing statements" changes both statements become true. They are no longer opposing statements in that they are now two separate statements. (hint: it was why it is usually separated by a lot of words… like…. whole books…)

Tarzan is attempting to ignore the value change of punishment (and also though I did not draw out the full complexity within the proof, the value change of fathers). He is doing that with a lot of verses.

Tarzan claims logic as his "great breakthrough" but as you see that what he ignores is the math behind logic. He ignores the very value system that is in our language.

His logical "proof" does not in anyway apply to the statements. He is using simple logic and ASSUMING values of statements, disregarding the fact that contextual criticism of any document or statement requires complex logic or values to be assigned by the context.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Some 90% of my opponent's rebuttal is a complete red herring. However, let us examine the relevant parts:

>>"Tarzan is asserting a simple logical proof by assuming the value of the second statement as false."

INCORRECT - the conjunction itself is false regardless of the relative truth value of the individual statements. For the conjunction to be true, the statements inside MUST BOTH BE TRUE. This is clearly impossible because if one of them is true, the other is necessarily false.

>> "He is asserting that these two statements (see his above argument) are inherently opposites. I would concur."

Readers, remember this.

>> "However, two opposites can co-exist and both be true. This is where Tarzan is attempting to confuse the issue.
By stating (A & ~A) can never co-exist he is attempting to prove the illogical nature of the Bible with a simple logical proof."

INCORRECT - two opposites in conjunction CANNOT both be true. The only person confused on this issue is Galiban. (A & ~A) can never be logically true in conjunction regardless of the statements involved.

>>" His logic fails in the fact that the FALSE value is ASSUMED for logical purposes. It is not necessarily a false statement."

INCORRECT - the false value is not assumed - it is the necessary and only resolution of (A & ~A).

>>" I hate you. I love you. A 13 year old Girl possesses both these statements and both statements are true. Resolution: She hates her Father and loves her mother. By inserting additional values to the statement we see that both statements are true. The value of "you" changed."

You are a VERY confused individual. If you consider these statements with any sort of proper understanding it is plain to see that the logical implications of the statements are:

I hate father.
I love mother.

Thus, the conjunction would be more along the lines of (~F & M). This can obviously be true.

*********************************************

Galiban tries to back out of his earlier egregiously flawed model by positing extra pieces to the proposition. In his original line, we see:

A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.

Logically, (A & B) or (A & ~A)

Now he wants to change it to:

A = God does punish the children for the sins of the father when they are collectively children of a nation that uniformly goes against God's will.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father in the form of penal substitution.

Logically, [(C -> A) & (P -> B)]

Small wonder he considers the second to resolve the conflict. However, AFTER his changes to the logic, the statements are no longer diametric opposites.

********************************************

>> "Tarzan claims logic as his "great breakthrough" but as you see that what he ignores is the math behind logic. He ignores the very value system that is in our language."

Galiban seems to be quite confused as to what I assert. I assert that opposites cannot be logically resolved as true. If he views this as a great breakthrough, I suggest he retake basic logic. This has been around for hundreds of years - I do not pretend it is great in any way, merely that it is obvious even to a child.

>> "Tarzan is attempting to ignore the value change of punishment (and also though I did not draw out the full complexity within the proof, the value change of fathers). He is doing that with a lot of verses."

If one reads the original statement that Galiban posted, it is quite obvious that he did not offer any further explanation of punishment or fathers. I'm a little puzzled why he considers this debate to be about the Bible - the resolution does not mention the Bible at all.

>> "His logical "proof" does not in anyway apply to the statements. He is using simple logic and ASSUMING values of statements, disregarding the fact that contextual criticism of any document or statement requires complex logic or values to be assigned by the context."

Once again, Galiban demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of basic logic. (A & ~A) can NEVER be resolved as true. It's quite simple. Adding context to a statement changes the logical conjunction to something more like (A & B). However, his original argumentation contains NO CONTEXT AT ALL.

*********************************************

Readers, this debate is not about the bible. This debate is about whether or not (A & ~A) can be resolved as true. In any logical argument, when the conclusion is (A & ~A), one of the premises MUST be false, because the conclusion is logically incoherent.

Galiban's argument on this topic follows along the lines of "Well, diametric opposites can't really be resolved, but if you add some other properties to the statements so they are no longer opposites, they can." He even states something similar to this ("We see when the one value of punishment in the "diametrically opposing statements" changes both statements become true. They are no longer opposing statements in that they are now two separate statements.") I submit that his line of reasoning is concession of the debate.

Regardless of the content of the premises, (A & ~A) can never be resolved as true.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

"90% of Galiban's argument is a red herring"
This is my opponent justification for ignoring all of the information that proves him wrong. I can only shake my head.

All of my opponents statements rest on the fact that he TARZAN assigned these statements are polar opposites and cannot be reconciled.

I am stating that Tarzan completely ignores the context in which the statements were written. Notice he never addresses the fact they are not in the same sentence?

It would have to read something like this for my opponent's logical proof to be accurate:
God said "You know Jim, I would never punish you for your father's sin, but he is such a prick your gonna burn man!"

This is a true opposing statement where one is false and one is true and irreconcilable.

""INCORRECT - two opposites in conjunction CANNOT both be true. The only person confused on this issue is Galiban. (A & ~A)""

Again it is Tarzan that placed them in the proof with the conjunction. Not the Bible and not Galiban. I explained to him and he ignored context.

My proof is the relevant proof and only acceptable one that deals with the entire surrounding context.

""<
This again is a blatant disregard of the context. Tarzan is putting a value on the statement that is not in the text. He is assuming the value of punish is the same. On top of that he takes two statements from two different books 40 years apart and places them in one statement and goes "See! Foolish God he is so silly!"

Everything again shows that He is just plain wrong. He is Dodging the entirety of the argument by attempting to redefine. It is the only thing he can do to win the debate is make personal attacks and state "Me Tarzan, me is right".

NOW to see that he actually agrees with the premise of the argument we see below:

(Though he refuses to accept the values I place on punish because that would mean he is wrong. He is just denying the context of the Bible)

""<
I hate father.
I love mother.

Thus, the conjunction would be more along the lines of (~F & M). This can obviously be true.>>""

EXACTLY! Wow, so he thinks that context clearly and logically changed how the "proof" should be written. (To be technically accurate the code above is not well written: see comments.)
Now my opponent admits that the two statements can be resolved as true but must be rewritten with a new code. Logical implications must be accounted for. This is exactly what I did to his (A & ~A)

He rewrote the code to adapt for the logical implications. I rewrote the code to adapt for the context. I assigned values to the context. He chooses not to and just assigned false to father. Bad coding but at least the attempt concedes it is possible to reconcile PERCEIVED inconsistencies through context.

He holds to his argument because he felt the Bible wrote it poorly? Silly Bible, it wrote it 40 years apart in two different books to two different audiences.

Lets attempt to apply his flawed thinking.

Clearly I am wrong and the paragraph should be written more logically? I should have "made" two better statements?
I love mother.
I hate father.

Theresa went home one day and her father told her to do chores and she rebuked him saying to him "I hate father."
She then went into the living room and her mother whispers "Don't worry, I'll do your chores." the teenage girl whispers back "I love mother."

Do we see any flaws?
I love you & I hate you - These are the ways in which we would write and read this paragraph. It is never written to fit a code, the code must be written to fit what is written in the work we are digesting.

Logic is implied in the statement but values are assigned by context. We do not write the information in a paragraph as you are suggesting it should be written. You can argue all day long the English language is illogical but this shows you are wrong and it also shows how you have taken the Bible out of context.

"<"

That was stating the context, which was already have shown you rejected. Shush.

To summarize,
Tarzan admits that when a logical inconsistency is met it must be written so it is logically consistent. My opponent refuses to admit that the Bible has different values assigned to all of the statements he is taking out of context.
The logical implications are that the Bible is completely logical :)

I also DISAGREE that this debate is not about the Bible. If Tarzan is entirely wrong in his understanding of the assigned values of the Biblical statements then he is wrong about the Bible being inconsistent. He is also then wrong in his symbolic "proof". HE MUST ignore the Bible to remain accurate in his "proof".

To fully understand why my code is accurate we must come to understand some inherent concepts within the Bible to show that there is more information that Tarzan is IGNORING. He has been told these things, he is just at this point being academically dishonest in all of his attempts at interpretation.

1st. God is a person. He speaks in different times, to different people for different reasons.
2nd. God does things so that he will be just to those who deserve justice but allow for injustice to occur to those who are unjust, 3rd takes into account the innocent paying for the unjust.
3rd. God sees Nations as entities, in the same way we see nations but also companies. We allow a person to sue a company for damages for the decisions of the CEO. That entire company bears the burden. We also do this to nations. We made Germany pay back for years the cost of the war. The children who did not even fight paid the bill for the atrocities of their fathers.

We must understand that God gives us personal responsibility of our Children. He will not overrule that responsibility. A crack addict's newborn will bear the same burden. God is referencing a system he has put in place that all people are under. It is called a corporate entity. This is defined as nations and families.
We are held accountable for what we do for those under our authorities. As well those under our authorities bear the burden of our "wrongs".
That is the implied logic (context) behind the statement "to the third and fourth generation God will punish the Children for the sins of the father."

The second statement is directly taking the context of what nations did around Israel. Children were considered possessions of the parents in those nations and they could toss away their lives at a whim. There was even a religion that worshipped a god called Molech that demanded child sacrifice by fire. God was appalled by such abuse of his system. (Also why God authorized wiping out everyone in those nations. He was showing nothing, absolutely nothing, was good from such an abuse.)
In those countries I could rape someone and then hand my son over to take my punishment and serve my time. I could do this until I ran out of children. This was an outright abuse of the established system from God. He did not allow this in Israel.

Again I point to my proof above is the only proof between the two that is taking into context. Or, as Tarzan redefines it, "logical implications".
I love how he redefines context as logical implications just to avoid losing the debate. Again pointing to Academic dishonesty. He is not denying the clear logic of my proposition, which everyone understands, but is unwilling, to admit I am right and there are more values needed to discern the biblical statements. He would have to thus concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Once again, I must remind my opponent and the readers that this debate is NOT about the Bible. No place in the resolution does it indicate any sort of religious import into this debate. Furthermore, this debate is classified as miscellaneous, not religion.

The examples Galiban has offered are as follows:

A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.

I HATE YOU.
I LOVE YOU.

My opponent's entire argument revolves around adding more qualifiers to the statements to remove them from the realm of contradiction. However, when additional qualifiers are added, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and are completely irrelevant to this debate.

Galiban's burden of proof is to show that "diametrically opposing statements can be logically resolved as true." He as in no way done this. He has merely shown that one can add qualifiers that change the nature of the statements and THEN they can be resolved as true. This does NOT in ANY WAY meet the burden of proof.

*************************************************

>> "All of my opponents statements rest on the fact that he TARZAN assigned these statements are polar opposites and cannot be reconciled."

My opponent seems to be quite utterly befuddled as to the nature of (A & ~A).

>> "I am stating that Tarzan completely ignores the context in which the statements were written."

No - context does not matter for opposing statements. If you add qualifiers, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements.

>> "Again it is Tarzan that placed them in the proof with the conjunction. Not the Bible and not Galiban. I explained to him and he ignored context."

Yet again... context is irrelevant for opposing statements. Add some context and they are no longer opposing.

>> "He is assuming the value of punish is the same. On top of that he takes two statements from two different books 40 years apart and places them in one statement and goes "See! Foolish God he is so silly!""

More like examining the terrible logical argument put forth my my opponent and quoted in the first round and saying "See! Foolish Galiban he is so silly!"

>> "Everything again shows that He is just plain wrong. He is Dodging the entirety of the argument by attempting to redefine."

Excuse me? You don't even address your own argument, and immediately start adding qualifiers you are not permitted to add. This debate is about the logical argument you posted, NOT what you meant to post. It is in no way my fault that your logic in the first round is egregiously flawed. Again - YOU are trying to redefine terms, NOT me.

>> "Now my opponent admits that the two statements can be resolved as true but must be rewritten with a new code. Logical implications must be accounted for. This is exactly what I did to his (A & ~A)"

Once again, Galiban demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the concept. If "I hate you" and "I love you" really means "I hate father" and "I love mother" then the logical argument IS different. But if nobody states that "you" is referring to two different individuals, then the statements are diametrically opposing and irreconcilable.

>> "He holds to his argument because he felt the Bible wrote it poorly? Silly Bible, it wrote it 40 years apart in two different books to two different audiences."

How many times must I restate that this is NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE??

>> "Theresa went home one day and her father[F] told her to do chores[C] and she rebuked him saying to him "I hate father [H]."
She then went into the living room and her mother[M] whispers "Don't worry, I'll do your chores. [I]" the teenage girl whispers back "I love mother.[L]""

Sigh. Consider:

{[(F -> C) -> H] & [(M -> I) -> L]}
F
M
------------------
:. (H & L)

When we have a paragraph, it is quite easy to construct a proper logical argument. Once again, we are talking about Galiban's egregiously flawed premises in the argument from Round 1.

>> "That was stating the context, which was already have shown you rejected. Shush."

Wonderful - my opponent tries to hide the fact that he is NOT addressing the resolution.

>> "Tarzan admits that when a logical inconsistency is met it must be written so it is logically consistent."

I did no such thing. When a logical inconsistency is met as a conclusion of an argument, one of the premises is flawed. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

>> "I also DISAGREE that this debate is not about the Bible."

You may disagree all you want. However, you are still wrong. If this debate were about the Bible, I would have illustrated the dozens of examples of Biblical inconsistencies. This debate is about LOGIC.

>> "To fully understand why my code is accurate we must come to understand some inherent concepts within the Bible to show that there is more information that Tarzan is IGNORING."

How many times must I iterate for you that your original argument CONTAINS NO CONTEXT.

>> "Again I point to my proof above is the only proof between the two that is taking into context. Or, as Tarzan redefines it, "logical implications"."

I redefined nothing. I showed that context introduces additional logical parameters - parameters MISSING from your original argument.

>> "I love how he redefines context as logical implications just to avoid losing the debate. Again pointing to Academic dishonesty."

Wow.

************************************************

>> "He is not denying the clear logic of my proposition, which everyone understands"

This is his proposition:

(((E ->D)^(E->C))->(A . B))

A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.
C = God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father.
D = the children of the nation are punished for the national decisions.
E = God's Justice.

There is no modicum of logic in this proposition. Consider it written out:

Galiban : If God is just, then the children of a nation are punished for national decisions and if God is just, God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father. Therefore, God punishes the children for the sins of the father and God does not punish children for the sins of the father.

This obviously makes no sense at all.

****************************************

Once again, I remind the readers and my opponent that this debate is not about the Bible. The only consideration in this debate is thus:

Can (A & ~A) be logically reconciled as true?

The answer to this is necessarily "NO." My opponent has in no way fulfilled his burden of proof in this debate and has largely ignored the resolution. His argument focuses on adding parameters to his original statements so they are no longer (A & ~A) but rather something more like (A & B). However, even if he does this, he cannot make any more arguments about that pairing in this debate because they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and this debate deals with only diametrically opposing statements.

Once again - my opponent must show that "diametrically opposing statements (logical contradictions) can be logically resolved as true."

He has not done this and cannot.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

I wish to point the audience to my consistent pointing to context.

A and ~A. I am not attempting to reconcile true and false as my opponent is now redefining the argument in the last rebuttal. I do not believe anyone thinks that I am or even should.

I am reconciling the VALUES of A and ~A. It is illogical to state they cannot be reconciled no matter the context, when A and ~A are values and are context, in and of themselves. The value of A is context, it is a statement. ~A is context, it is a statement. You cannot remove context from context. All statements are context. Context has assigned values and statements have assigned values. If you can assign a value it is context to something.

Clearly I am under some misguided notion that Tarzan took the Bible out of context, which forced this debate.
That is inherently the debate according to the resolution. Tarzan did not create a proper "proof" that used the context. Basically the resolution is fulfilled and I have met my burden if Tarzan's "proof" was not accurate. My proof that was not detailed in any way but took context into account in a propositional logical form, was accurate in taking into context.
Now the resolution is about logically reconciling two diametrically opposing statements. Tarzan is now attempting to put forth that this debate is simply drilling down to just two matter of fact statements.

As though I stated or the Bible stated two diametrically opposing statements out of the clear blue? I did not even choose the statements. Tarzan did in an earlier debate.

Tarzan I must ask. Do you seriously expect the audience to believe that?
You took two statements out of the Bible and "said" they were diametrically opposing statements. This predicated the code in the start of this debate from you!
(A & ~A) You put those statements in this "proof".

Tarzan is using the resolution to state that the concept of symbolic language or the symbolic "proof" of opposing statements cannot be reconciled. I am asserting that the values contained there in can be reconciled. Very simple.

From his first round post:
Galiban's conclusion in his "logical" argument is "(A . B)" or "A and B are both true." With our above recategorization, his conclusion becomes "A and ~A are both true."

This is a logical impossibility. The conjunction is necessarily always false.

I have been the whole time arguing that the conjunction was poorly used. How is that hard to understand?

I am debating that context does have a significant impact and statements can be reconciled when the additional values are inserted! Tarzan's proof was flawed when dealing with the context of the Bible. Tarzan's first post clearly recognizes the 5 additional values from my "proof".

You are attempting to use the resolution to constrain this debate to the fact that Logical contradictions cannot be reconciled. That is only true if you ignore context. Your first statement states just that. I am asserting the opposite! Hence the argument.

Tarzan proceeds to state this in his last rebuttal:
""My opponent's entire argument revolves around adding more qualifiers to the statements to remove them from the realm of contradiction. However, when additional qualifiers are added, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and are completely irrelevant to this debate.""

Does anyone see the concession that directly concedes the entire debate from his first statement? He is completely stating that when more qualifiers are added to these statements they are no longer diametrically opposing statements. That is fulfilling the resolution and my "proof".
It is completely logical to add additional values to two existing values and to make them not opposing. Hence opposing statements are logically resolved to then become true.

I have asserted NOT that you are ignoring fundamental logical statements, but you are ignoring lateral thinking by such an action (writing out a simple logical equation rather than a complex one). Redefining the debate as though somehow we are debating just the below statements is absurd:
A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father.
B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father.

We are debating specifically and fundamentally not whether (A &~A) is inherently a wrong way to write some "thing", but whether you wrote the code wrong from the statements. Inherently logical code is pointless without an originating statement.

Are we sitting around pondering "A". I take a tug on my pipe while staring off…. "A. It makes the sound of aaaaaa….."

A statement of opposites (A & ~A) if NOT STANDING ON ITS OWN can always be reconciled.

Specifically diametrically opposing statements can and will always be reconciled with context, because they hold a value within context,which is what I am arguing against your assertion. Logical code is written to reflect statements and not vice versa. You concede this.

""However, when additional qualifiers are added, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and are completely irrelevant to this debate.""

I am not asserting that "sentential" symbolic language as fundamentally wrong but your usage.

(A & ~A) is not always accurate and can be reconciled. Not the logic of the symbolic statement but the values they hold! How many ways can I state this profound concept.
I am not arguing that the mathematical system is flawed but those who use it.

If those who use it are flawed then it will be flawed. It can be reconciled if the values contained within are not independent stand alone values.
The resolution does not state that the Symbolic code cannot be reconciled.
The resolution is rather asserting "statements". Those statements have value. Values can be reconciled with other values!

Lets look at the resolution again:
Diametrically Opposing STATEMENTS (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True

In the same way I am not arguing that two statements out of the clear blue, that are opposing statements are not opposing, but that statements that are diametrically opposing statements can always logically be reconciled by context. That was clear from the start, which you stated, and the comments.

You are being deliberately and academically dishonest at this point to suggest that my code was even suggesting that two statements out of the blue was in question.

IF YOU RECALL THERE WERE 5 VALUES IN MY ORIGINAL POST WHICH YOU COPIED.

Do you have no understanding that (A & ~A) never "really" stand on its own? Do you think that I am even suggesting that this debate is not about context?

You are attempting to change the fundamentals of the argument in your first post.

NOW TO FINISH ADDRESSING THE RESOLUTION:
(A & ~A) Logically cannot be used to solve all problems. It can be logically resolved by using Predicate Calculus.

In formality the original two concepts (Linear thinking and Lateral thinking) are called Propositional calculus and Predicate calculus.
See here for definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The area of symbolic logic called propositional logic, propositional calculus …studies the properties of sentences formed from CONSTANTS, …
Predicate logic, originally called predicate calculus, expands on propositional logic by the introduction of variables,…
If you recall the original definitions of lateral and linear you will see they match up. Propositional = Constants. Predicate = Variable or quantified.
To conclude this with a logical argument:
When you are studying the Bible you cannot just look at two statements that appear to be opposing, you must look at it with all variables otherwise you wind up Looking like Tarzan, "half naked hanging from a Tree."

Predicate Logic will solve all logical fundamentals of the Bible. Not Tarzan's disingenuous "proofs".
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Roy Latham,
She probably gets very irritated with you.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
>Really? Objectivism?

Really? Passive-aggressive appeal to ridicule?

Are you simply trying to avoid admitting that any system of thought that did not abide by non-contradiction and identity is most likely worthless, or at least non-rigorous?
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Galiban, So why is my wife never impressed with my brilliant analyses? An imponderable.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Wow that is some downright impressive focus. You are correct I should have used apparent not inherent. I did mispeak. I meant apparent but wrote inherent. I tip my hat at such a detailed and accurate critique of both sides. I am stunned and have not yet seen anyone have that level of critique.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Tarzan, You said "The proposition on offer is that diametrically opposing statements such as (A & ~A) cannot be logically resolved as true, no matter the context." That poses it as a logical contradiction, which it is not. The context could potentially have resolved the apparent contradiction. I agree the debate was a mess. Con incorrectly used the word "inherent". He then went on to argue that the contradiction was apparent, not inherent. In my example, parents sometimes spanking a misbehaving child and other times not is an apparent contradiction, but not an inherent one. So you didn't mean the proposition to be asserting a logical contradiction, and Con didn't mean to agree that it was. That leaves the observer to suppose what was actually debated and who won. I think the more grevious error was in formulating it as a logical contradiction.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Be that as may, the fact remains that the resolution is about contradictions. Galiban's posted argument contained a contradiction. Resolving that contradiction by clarifying it so it is a non-contradiction does not address the resolution.

Furthermore, Galiban conceded that the statements as they stood were indeed contradictory ("He is asserting that these two statements (see his above argument) are inherently opposites. I would concur.").

Thus, it is quite obvious that Galiban's argument is centered around redefining what HE CONSIDERS to be "inherent opposites" as non-contradictory. This clearly removes the statements from the scope of the resolution.

I believe I said this at the beginning of the second round when I informed readers that his argument was some 90% red herring.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Tarzan, A gave the example of parents that sometimes spank their misbehaving children and other times do not spank their misbehaving children. Do you hold that to be a logical contradiction of the form asserting A and ~A? I claim it is an apparent inconsistency, not a logical contradiction, and it might be explained by the details of how the child misbehaved. A logical contradiction would be to claim the child always misbehaves and never misbehaves; that would unresolvable. It is not a logical contradiction for God to adapt His behavior to the occasion.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
In all of that you still did not state why you believed we were debating a hard metaphysical concept of truth vs. false.

Especially when my proof directly showed you that the values of statements that you assigned true and false could be reconciled by additional statements from the context of the Bible.

I do not mind the audience believing you. They are robotic when it comes to logic.

But you cannot be plum crazy. I refuse to believe it. Where you playing on the robotic nature of the defintion of "logical contradictions" to win the audience? The hard defintion is pointless in that propositional logic could never encompass variables.

Discussion went.
Debate - the bible is full of contradictions
no its not.
yes it is
no its not
yes it is.
See context shows you do not know the bible and you took it out of the context and made it opposing statements.
no I didnt
Yes you did
nuh uh! Its a logical contradiction and both cant be true.
Logical contradictions as "you define it" (put it) can both be true if you use context
Another debate challenge - Diametrically Opposing Statements (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True
Yes they can (you defined it in your first round)- If other statements are in the context they can and your proof is simply wrong.
Nuh uh!
Yes huh!
Nuh uh! True is true and false is false!
What???

Through out all of that you asserted nothing but I was wrong. Then sang a whole new tune.

What part of my entire argument in the comments, in the proof, in any of the information doled out in the debate and even all of the analogies led you to a conclusion we were in anyway debating true vs. false and not the inherent value of the two statements YOU POSTED in your first round.

That will solve my tizzy :)
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
A brief recap:

1) I post your argument as an example of a contradiction
2) I clearly show the logical flaws inherent in it
3) You assert the contradiction is not a contradiction
4) You assert that this somehow fulfills the resolution

I ask how on earth a non-contradiction can fulfill a resolution that is necessarily about a contradiction?

>> "I do not know how through any of our conversations you could actually believe what you are stating now about the resolution."

You mean how I could believe this is about flawed logic and not the bible? Easily - because it IS. You are the only one pretending this is about the bible.

>> "You cannot actually believe that I was in anyway stating that hard metaphysical concepts as true and false were in doubt when we have always been talking about the Bible and the fact you are ignoring context."

As I tried to remind you again and again, this WAS about hard metaphysical concepts. Not the bible.

>> "Simply put you are being deliberately obtuse. Unless you care to explain why you believe that?"

Perhaps because I wrote the resolution and know my intent far better than you? You adopt some bizarre understanding of the resolution and state that I am obtuse.... this confuses me...
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Calm down, you seem tense. Can I give you a gift certificate to a spa?

All I am saying is If you really believe all that you are stating, you must see the logical contradictions you put as constraints on yourself and your own thinking.

Simply put like this one your levitical debate was based on logical contradictions. But as long as we both agree that your proof was wrong in context I have no issues. I only desire the truth and not the resolution.

Hopefully he does not mind as I was attempting to explain what was absolutely clear to me. He seemed to reflect exactly what I saw.

I do not know how through any of our conversations you could actually believe what you are stating now about the resolution. I have an objective moral compass that is clear. I may be mistaken but I am genuine.

You cannot actually believe that I was in anyway stating that hard metaphysical concepts as true and false were in doubt when we have always been talking about the Bible and the fact you are ignoring context.

Simply put you are being deliberately obtuse. Unless you care to explain why you believe that? I could be mistaken...?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ozziegirl 8 years ago
ozziegirl
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bigg3r_trigg3r 8 years ago
bigg3r_trigg3r
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Debatenewbie14 8 years ago
Debatenewbie14
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06