Biblical contradictions

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Contradictions are always a problem, because any proposition whatsoever can be validly deduced from a contradiction.

For example, this argument is valid for any proposition P:

P
Not-P
Hence, Jesus is not divine.

So, you should be able to see that no matter how trivial or irrelevant the constituent propositions of the contradiction may be i ...[text shortened]... the gist G of something cannot be got since Not-G can be validly deduced from the contradiction.

Contradictions are not a problem for me.
Like the evolution / creation contradiction.
There are 'truths' to both sides of the arguement. Some very nice 'truths' too! A lot depends on where you are at, on which particurlar 'truths' you are wirking on at the time.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Contradictions are not a problem for me.
Like the evolution / creation contradiction.
There are 'truths' to both sides of the arguement. Some very nice 'truths' too! A lot depends on where you are at, on which particurlar 'truths' you are wirking on at the time.

You obviously fail to understand the definition of 'contradiction.'

Originally posted by rwingett
You obviously fail to understand the definition of 'contradiction.'

creaton theory contradicts evolutionary theory.
What am I obviously faitling to understand?
( sorry I'm a bit slow today)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
creaton theory contradicts evolutionary theory.
What am I obviously faitling to understand?
( sorry I'm a bit slow today)

Dr. S is talking about logical contradictions within an argument which render it incoherent, not competing arguments contradicting one another.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Contradictions are not a problem for me.
Like the evolution / creation contradiction.
There are 'truths' to both sides of the arguement. Some very nice 'truths' too! A lot depends on where you are at, on which particurlar 'truths' you are wirking on at the time.

Taken at face value, you have just claimed P and not P. Your statement is therefore nonsensical. However you did put your 'truths' in quotes. So are you saying that evolution and creationism can both be true, or are you saying neither is fully true and some have some bits that are true - not necessarily a contradiction.

Originally posted by rwingett
Dr. S is talking about logical contradictions within an argument which render it incoherent, not competing arguments contradicting one another.

point taken. i see what you mean.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Taken at face value, you have just claimed P and not P. Your statement is therefore nonsensical. However you did put your 'truths' in quotes. So are you saying that evolution and creationism can both be true, or are you saying neither is fully true and some have some bits that are true - not necessarily a contradiction.

I dont know exactly. Whats your take? Can evolution theory and creation theory be reconciled ? Surely they contradict each other. Then again there is more than one e-theory and c-theory.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I dont know exactly. Whats your take? Can evolution theory and creation theory be reconciled ? Surely they contradict each other. Then again there is more than one e-theory and c-theory.

Taken as a whole they cannot be reconciled. Presumably though it is possible that each one is only partly correct and therefore one could have 'truths' from each as you said. However for any given fact that they make an assertion about (eg the age of the earth) then if the two disagree then only one at most can be correct.
It is not very clear from your post what you were saying. Were you saying we can draw lessons from two alternative stories, or were you saying both theories in some ways describe actual reality? Or could you possibly have been saying that both are viable alternatives as we do not know which is actually correct? Can you clarify as I am just guessing in the dark here.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
A set of propositions is contradictory when a proposition of the form (A AND NOT-A) can be derived from its propositions using the rules of logical deduction.

A set of propositions is proven to be contradictory upon construction of a sequence of applications of rules of logical deduction upon the propositions which produces any proposition of the ...[text shortened]... y do not agree upon which set of propositions should be inspected for contradictory entailments.

This analysis is correct but incomplete. A set of propositions is contradictory when a strict contradiction of the form (P&~P) can be derived via the rules of logical deduction together with definitions of those concepts partially constitutive of the content of the propositions in question. The propositions "Bennett is a pimp" and "Bennett has no stable" are contradictory only when you unpack the conceptual content of 'pimp'. The basic point is that some contradictions result purely from the syntactic form of propositions in conjunction, but some only result from this together with the semantic entailments of constituents of those propositions. Depressingly, this is why arguments about religion often devolve into debates about the meaning of terms; why we often accuse the religious of a 'secret-decoder-ring' semantics with regard to normative terms in particular, and, conversely, why they accuse us of taking their use of terms radically out context.

Originally posted by rwingett
Dr. S is talking about logical contradictions within an argument which render it incoherent, not competing arguments contradicting one another.

The Bible treated as a collection of narratives: the dreamworld of Catholicism.
The Bible subjected to logical interpretation: the rigorous absurdity of Calvinism.

Originally posted by galveston75
So your saying the devil had a hand in writing the Bible?

well if he had left things alone in the garden. for one.
2 he tempted christ in the wilderness
3 he gave job a hard time

Originally posted by stoker
well if he had left things alone in the garden. for one.
2 he tempted christ in the wilderness
3 he gave job a hard time

The devil is IN the Bible, but didn't help write it, like Adam is in the Bible, but didn't help write it.

Originally posted by daniel58
The devil is IN the Bible, but didn't help write it, like Adam is in the Bible, but didn't help write it.

Just like the word 'dung' is in the bible. The bible isn't made out of dung, it's just filled with it.

Originally posted by rwingett
Just like the word 'dung' is in the bible. The bible isn't made out of dung, it's just filled with it.

What this; a commune in the Doubs department in France? No the Bible is filled with Truth.

Originally posted by daniel58
What this; a commune in the Doubs department in France? No the Bible is filled with Truth.

What this; a commune in the Doubs department in France? No the Bible is filled with Truth. LOL

you must forgive him Daniel, for to us it is a sweet smelling oudour, to others it issues forth a foul smell. the Apostle Paul alludes to this, check this out.

But thanks be to God who always leads us in a triumphal procession in company with the Christ and makes the odour of the knowledge of him perceptible through us in every place!  For to God we are a sweet odour of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the latter ones an odour issuing from death to death, to the former ones an odour issuing from life to life. 2 Corinthians 2:14-16

here Paul was referring to the Roman procession, see that in the verse, 'a triumphal procession', what would happen was, as the procession passed through the city, the populace threw flowers before the victor’s chariot, and burning incense on temple altars perfumed the way. This sweet odour signified honours, promotion, wealth, and a more secure life for the victorious soldiers, but it signified death to the unpardoned captives who would be executed at the end of the procession.

therefore to us, the Bible is truth and life and we really rejoice in reading it, but to others like our friend Ringwett, it issues forth a different odour. 🙂