Why are you up -thumbing that? Is it going somewhere the sun doesn't shine? The guy hasn't a clue. He thinks that if it is possible (metaphysically, not epistemically) for a contradiction to be true, then it is true. That's dumb beyond belief. And irony of ironies, it demonstrably generates contradictions!

So, by Dummo's logic - which you are persuaded is good because you are either as bad at it as he is, or you are impressed by symbols you don't understand and words like 'calculus' - if it is possible for you to be 6ft total height, then you are. And as it is also possible for you to be 5ft total height, then you have a 5ft total height too. And so now you are 5ft tall in total and 6ft tall in total at the same time. Which is a contradiction. Good reasoning?

No. It's shit. Obviously it doesn't follow from you being possibly 5ft that you actually are. And likewise it does not follow from a contradiction being possibly true that it is.

I take it you've read McTaggart? — Bartricks

McTaggart "proves" time is not real by showing it leads to a contradiction. If time isn't real then there can be no contradictions.

We have sensations of time. They are 'of' time, but do not constitute it. . Hence why we can have false impressions - something can appear more past than it is, etc. — Bartricks

Such false impressions are not universal but relative from person to person.

But what they are sensations of, will themselves be sensations, for sensations resemble sensations and nothing else. — Bartricks

Time isn't just sensation, time is real and core part of Einstein's general relativity.
Time can be measured and calculated without any involvement of sensations.

And thus though time is not made of our temporal sensations, it is made of someone's. — Bartricks

Which you claim to be God's sensations in our mind. :pray:

contradictions do not have to make mention of time, so far as I can see. If a proposition is true, it is not also false.

It's a given that there are no true contradictions. Note, that is something I believe, as surely as anyone else.

McTaggart thinks that our concept of time contains a contradiction and thus does not have anything answering to it in reality.

But this, I think, is a result of thinking that change essentially involves time. Which it doesn't

for a contradiction to be true, then it is true. — Bartricks

Let's start with a statement.

G = God exists.

If I deny God exists then ~G = God does not exist.

If God is beyond time and since time plays a crucial role in contradictions, God is able to defy the law of noncontradiction.

This means that it's possible that God exists AND God doesn't exist is true.

However, if time doesn't apply to God, the "AND" operator loses meaning. If I say "I am in Paris AND I'm happy" what I want to convey is the conjuncts ("I am in Paris", "I am happy") are to be understood as happening at the same time.

For a contradiction, the AND operator, its meaning as outlined above, is critical. Without the AND operator, the concept of a contradiction is meaningless. That means God can't do contradictions. Right?

This unstoppable character of light, lies at the bottom of SR (and GR, for that matter, which is nothing more than accelerated SR). In a sense you could say that interaction by light is instantaneous, as there is no time passage for light. So in a sense, all thing happen at the same time. Luckily there is space to prevent this.

Note that I use entropic time as the ingredient of this vision. A value can be assigned to it, it's entropic time quantified.

So in this light, can time (so not our subjective experience of it) be assigned to God? It depends. If he is part of this universe, then obviously yes. If they are outside of it? Maybe. It could be that there is a higher dimensional realm, of which our universe is an intersection. While time out there continues, the time at the big bang could have been fluctuating, giving rise to the big bang at their time-like command. — GraveItty

My hazy intuitions warn me that you somehow both recognize and confound various times here and there. Plato seems to read as speaking of three types of motion: translation, rotation, and flux which I think of as any sort of change over time. But Plato also thought that time and change are interchangeable,

Modern entropy is the slime that the slug that is the universe leaves in its trail. Statistically it is a steady increase (like the tons of plastic bottles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean,) but locally there are greater outbursts depending on the strength of local flux (from rivers of pollutants). But time itself does nothing in modern physics any more than space does except to keep each other inflated. Therefore it seems to me that entropy is independent of physical time.

I don't know what you are talking about.

I think God can create true contradictions. That is, he has the power to confer truth on any proposition whatever.

That doesn't mean there are any true contradictions.

Dummo thinks it does, though christ only knows why as he won't say, he just squiggles and squoggles and asks supercilious questions.

But this, I think, is a result of thinking that change essentially involves time. Which it doesn't — Bartricks

Without time as 4th dimension change is said to be instant, which is unreal in real world.
Your position goes against general relativity.

what? Have you read McTaggart?

No, but it sounds interesting.

I don't know what you are talking about. — Bartricks

:lol:

I think God can create true contradictions — Bartricks

No, He can't if He is beyond time. The logical AND (&) operator becomes meaningless. Therefore, p & ~p is also undefined.

He isn't 'beyond time'. See OP. And yes he can, he can do anything. He's omnipotent. What stops him, exactly?

He isn't 'beyond time'. See OP. — Bartricks

Oh! Well, if He's within time, then of course, being all-powerful, He can generate contradictions!

My question would be, what else can generate contradictions? There are no true contradictions in the world as we know it. So, where's the proof that God exists? Show us a true contradiction.

What? There aren't any true contradictions. I keep saying that. Yet now you ask me to show you one. Your name is clearly spot on.

There are no centaurs.

Madfool: well in that case, show me one.

What? That makes no sense at all

If God is omnipotent, he can turn himself omni-disabled and omni-stupid. — GraveItty

Hahah :grin:

Which is contradictory to God also being omnibenevolent.

You can smash a vase into your face, yes? Does that mean you will someday? — Bartricks

I think he would just to prove you wrong lol

There aren't any true contradictions. — Bartricks

I wouldn't be so sure. :grin:

Focus. Whether there are any isn't the issue. The point is it is entirely possible for there to be none.
Dummo thinks that if it is possible for there to be true contradictions, then there are some. Do you agree?

He thinks that if it is possible for a contradiction to be true, then it is true. — Bartricks

Where did I say anything even approximating this?

I don't know what you are talking about. — Bartricks

Well, that's probably true. There's much you haven't understood.

He thinks that if it is possible for a contradiction to be true, then it is true.
— Bartricks
Where did I say anything even approximating this? — Banno

So you accept, do you, that if it is possible for a contradiction to be true, then it does not follow that it is?

And so you accept, do you, that it is entirely consistent with it being possible for a contradiction to be true, that none actually is?

And so you accept, do you, that my position - that it is possible for there to be a true contradiction, but in fact there are not any - is coherent and does not generate a contradiction?

Or do you think it does generate a contradiction? In which case, HOW?

Don't say 'this - a principle you don't accept because it includes the claim that contradictions are necessarily false - entails, via squiggle squoggle calculumus calculartum - that contradictions are necessarily false and therefore if you accept that there is a possible world in which there is a true contradiction, then ipio nipio fallatio calculatumio, there is a true contradiction in the actual world'.

Actually explain. Come along. In English. Don't say you have. You haven't. You've just squiggled and squoggled

You’re so confidently wrong I am about to throw up. I’m leaving to preserve my health. — khaled

Ah, is that an argument from ad nauseum?

You're confident I'm wrong, yes? Odd. Why so confident?

So you accept, do you, that if it is possible for a contradiction to be true, then it does not follow that it is? — Bartricks

Of course.

And so you accept, do you, that it is entirely consistent with it being possible for a contradiction being true, that none actually is? — Bartricks

No. Contradictions cannot be true, even in paraconsistent logic. This is some weird invention of your own, that mixes Dialetheism with modality without much by way of explication.

And so you accept, do you, that my position - that it is possible for there to be a true contradiction, but in fact there are not any - is coherent and does not generate a contradiction? — Bartricks

I don't accept Dialetheism. There are too many problems. The main issue is that Dialetheism does not give grounds for excluding anything. Now Dialetheism functions by denying the law of noncontradiction. But perversely, you insist that LNC is true, while also insisting that it is only contingent.

That's a whole heap of confused shit right there.

Actually explain. — Bartricks

For perhaps the sixth time...

Here is the reason that LNC is taken as necessary:

• All theorems of propositional calculus are necessary theorems of modal logic.
• The Law of Noncontradiction is a theorem of propositional calculus.
• Therefore the Law of noncontradiction is a necessary theorem of modal logic.
• If the Law of Noncontradiction is a necessary theorem, then it is not contingent.
• The law of noncontradiction is not contingent.

This contradicts your unsupported assertion that LNC is contingent.

You simply have not understood the nature of necessity.

And so you accept, do you, that it is entirely consistent with it being possible for a contradiction being true, that none actually is?
— Bartricks

No. Contradictions cannot be true, even in paraconsistent logic. This is some weird invention of your own, that mixes Dialetheism with modality without much by way of explication. — Banno

So your whole case against me is not that my view can be shown to generate a contradiction, but simply that it is false. All you are doing, again and again, is asserting that it is impossible for contradictions to be true - the very claim I deny.

Yet what you have claimed is that my view generates a contradiction. It doesn't. If you think otherwise, show it without assuming that there are necessary truths (and without assuming that if something can be the case, it is).

You can't. All you can do is reiterate your conviction that it is impossible for there to be true contradictions and then to put a label on that.

Once more: there are no necessary truths. I have an argument for that. And I know full well that there is apparently good evidence that there are necessary truths. I have an argument undercutting that evidence.

But you think that the claim is incoherent: that by making it I am committing myself to affirming actual contradictions. Yet at no point have you shown this. All you are doing is repeating, in stupidly grandiose ways that you don't fully understand, that it is impossible for there to be true contradictions, which is precisely what I deny. It's called begging the question. Stop it.

Yet what you have claimed is that my view generates a contradiction. It doesn't. — Bartricks

again, here's the contradiction:

...there are no necessary truths. — Bartricks

And how is that a contradiction? Don't squiggle. Don't squoggle. English. Come along.

again...

• If it is true, then every proposition is a contingent proposition.
• Hence, it is not possible that a proposition not be contingent.
• Hence it is a necessary truth that every proposition is a contingent proposition.
• And there is at least one necessary proposition: There are no necessary truths
• Which is a contradiction.

God you're thick.

Hence, it is not possible that a proposition not be contingent. — Banno

How does that follow? Pray tell, Dummo. All things are possible, dummo, remember?

How does that follow? Pray tell, Dummo — Bartricks

How does what follow? That you are thick? It follows from your inability to follow a simple argument.

But presumably you will not be able to follow that.

No, how does it follow from every actual proposition not being necessary that that proposition is necessarily true? Dummo. Show it. Show it without assuming some necessary truths. Come along - show me how thick I am.

There are no centaurs. Thus, every actual proposition that asserts there to be some is false. By Dummo logic that presumably means it is necessarily the case that there are no centaurs. Sounds a bit thick to me!

every actual proposition — Bartricks

...there's the equivocation, again.

You are going to protect your ineptitude regardless of my, or anyone else's, response.

That's an inherently, profoundly anti-intellectual position.