The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: You still don't get what a contradiction actually is.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "Do you concede the point?" (see in situ)

You still don't get what a contradiction actually is.

"You're combining them to conveniently quell any concept of contradiction. "
huh? I'm combining them to refute the ONLY concept of contradiction. contradiction is not an array of concepts, it is only one specific thing. You still don't get what it is. It is something in particular, it signifies something very specific in philosophy, and the only thing that needs to be demonstrated to disprove a contradiction in logic is to demonstrate that there is no mutual exclusivity. You seriously need to take a logic class, and I don't mean that as an insult, I think you would actually benefit from one. What the uninitiated think of logic is usually erroneous, and thought to be opinions that make sense to them, but logic is much closer to math than opinions or rationalizations. You need to use truth tables, venn diagrams, etc, because you are not seeing it. It doesn't matter whether or not a man is actually fat or thin in my argument, if one calls him tall, and another calls him fat or thin, there is no "contradiction" (see definition) in either case.. if one calls him fat and another calls him thin, THEN there would be a contradiction. Why can't you get that? It is so basic a child could understand. I don't understand why you refuse to see it for what it is. Instead you think that since the account of one man saying Joe was fat was never 'meant to be combined' with another account that Joe was tall, that there is some sort of problem, and you call it a contradiction but you don't even know how to recognize one.

Did you check out the link to the principle of charity I mentioned earlier? can you demonstrate how you are using that principle?

The way I harmonized the passages is not important to my argument, I could have said there were 4 angels in the tomb and it would not contradict the passages because none of them said there were only 2 or no more than 2 angels. So if there is another way to harmonize it, it still proves non-contradiction even if the harmonization is inaccurate, but the way that I harmonized it just took explicit information from both accounts and attempted to apply the principle of charity to it, which is the proper philosophical method of assessment here. I was not adding new information to the accounts in my harmonization. You could never be a decent judge or detective if you think two accounts could never be harmonized unless they were 'meant to be combined' in some mysterious way that supposedly doesn't apply here. What is 'meant to be combined' supposed to mean? If two accounts of the same event are not meant to be combined, then what is?