Thanksthe PC apeman wrote:Do please be careful not to explode.
So in a real world situation, let's say something can be dead and alive at the same time. Within the logic of EFQ, I can come to the conclusion George Harrison was a lemur. But in a real world situation the logic of EFQ will probably result in you having a good rashing. For exampleYour first hint is that as long as you stay within the world of formal logic, there is indeed nothing wrong with EFQ. Our classical formal logics all deploy it, and are right to do so, given the way they are set up. EFQ is indeed a consequence of the other rules. But suppose you stand back, outside formal logic, and ask a different question:
Is classical formal logic an adequate model of human reasoning? Does the formal system correctly mimic what we do when we reason? Especially when we reason using ‘if’?
If you want a working contradiction the quantum world is full of them. Light is a perfect example existing as both a wave and a particle simultaneously.BlackDog wrote:In the afterlife, in order for the paradox of God's Omniscience and Omnipotence to work the impossible must be possible.
We will exist in a state where:
A square with 5 sides should be possible along side a regular square
A circled square should work along side a circle and a square.
All of these objects should be possible to exist, and the contradiction of their state should be possible in order not to negate their existence.
What do you guys think? I have to work out what a working contradiction means, and if that is possible. Please note I'm new to matters of philosophy. Be gentle with me
Code: Select all
// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis
$str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);Elessarina wrote:We all have an afterlife.. our atoms get redistributed elsewhere..
It's true though.. personally I'd like to be thrown on the Serengeti/ Masai Mara to provide some sustenance for whatever wishes to have a nibbleBlackDog wrote:Elessarina wrote:We all have an afterlife.. our atoms get redistributed elsewhere..
Ah a type of Zoroastrian burial, let the vultures nibble on youElessarina wrote:It's true though.. personally I'd like to be thrown on the Serengeti/ Masai Mara to provide some sustenance for whatever wishes to have a nibbleBlackDog wrote:Elessarina wrote:We all have an afterlife.. our atoms get redistributed elsewhere..
Well I'd rather everything get a chance for a bite.. and for my bones to become part of the earthBlackDog wrote: Ah a type of Zoroastrian burial, let the vultures nibble on you
Actually, light exists as neither! It exhibits characteristics of both under different conditions but its true structure is something else altogether and not fully understood yet. The nature of light is not a contradiction unless you convince yourself that it must fit into one of the two categories - a logical fallacy based upon our lack of understanding.Ghatanothoa wrote:If you want a working contradiction the quantum world is full of them. Light is a perfect example existing as both a wave and a particle simultaneously.BlackDog wrote:In the afterlife, in order for the paradox of God's Omniscience and Omnipotence to work the impossible must be possible.
We will exist in a state where:
A square with 5 sides should be possible along side a regular square
A circled square should work along side a circle and a square.
All of these objects should be possible to exist, and the contradiction of their state should be possible in order not to negate their existence.
What do you guys think? I have to work out what a working contradiction means, and if that is possible. Please note I'm new to matters of philosophy. Be gentle with me
I'm not clear in what way the existence/possibility of an afterlife is seen to be related to omniscience and ominipotence.BlackDog wrote:In the afterlife, in order for the paradox of God's Omniscience and Omnipotence to work the impossible must be possible.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
