promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 8 years ago

Why did William Lane Craig say that a self-contradictory notion is logically impossible and cannot exist?

Do they pay him to put his foot in his mouth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h51YwIMxtrQ

Youtube thumbnail

Update:

"If you don't give the time at which he said it, how can we respond? I won't take the time to watch the video."

- Answered that yourself, Dullboy.

"What is your problem with this concept?" (X & ~X = F)

- Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say that the Law of Contradiction is a problem?

But I suppose, if you can't watch a video for a couple minutes, you probably also can't exhibit reading comprehension over 2 sentences.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Back up padding to cover for other lies, apparently.

    Love the way theistic apologists openly provide crap for A's, but then they all do that, including Craig, and pass it off as gold or something. But that's the point: Like religion itself, it just asserts its baseless notions and says "here", and if you don't like it, they over-react and demonize.

    Like we talked about one time, even "God..." wait a min. define that word first or the rest of the argument is moot.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Salutations!

    If you don't give the time at which he said it, how can we respond? I won't take the time to watch the video.

    However, self-contradictory statements are logically impossible and cannot exist. "A is not-A" is impossible and cannot exist.

    What is your problem with this concept?

    [edit]

    You post questions about logic, yet respond with textbook examples of ad hominen attacks. Your credibility is lost.

    [edit again]

    I went ahead and watched the first couple of minutes. In that time, Craig said religious relativism is self-contradictory and cannot be true. He is correct.

    For religious relativism to be true, then religion A and religion B are both true.

    However, religion A has beliefs that directly contradict religion B.

    Therefore, they both can't be true. But religious relativism asserts that they're both true. Hence, religious relativism is self-contradictory.

    To say that Craig puts his foot in his mouth, you'd have to prove that he holds a belief that is self-contradictory. That is, something that he believes by necessity cannot be true, and is self-contradictory. If you firmly believe that God does not exist, and Craig believes that God does exist, his belief may be incorrect, but his belief is not self-contradictory. That is, the statement "God exists" is not self-contradictory. "God exists" is not self-contradictory like "Circles are square," or "bachelors are married."

    If it is asserted Craig holds self-contradictory beliefs, then the burden of proof rests with those making that assertion.

    Yours,

    Abernathy the Dull

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Graham
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Please post your examples to back up your case.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.