Diametrically Opposing Statements (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True

I wish to point the audience to my consistent pointing to context. A and ~A. I am not attempting to reconcile true and false as my opponent is now redefining the argument in the last rebuttal. I do not believe anyone thinks that I am or even should. I am reconciling the VALUES of A and ~A. It is illogical to state they cannot be reconciled no matter the context, when A and ~A are values and are context, in and of themselves. The value of A is context, it is a statement. ~A is context, it is a statement. You cannot remove context from context. All statements are context. Context has assigned values and statements have assigned values. If you can assign a value it is context to something. Clearly I am under some misguided notion that Tarzan took the Bible out of context, which forced this debate. That is inherently the debate according to the resolution. Tarzan did not create a proper "proof" that used the context. Basically the resolution is fulfilled and I have met my burden if Tarzan's "proof" was not accurate. My proof that was not detailed in any way but took context into account in a propositional logical form, was accurate in taking into context. Now the resolution is about logically reconciling two diametrically opposing statements. Tarzan is now attempting to put forth that this debate is simply drilling down to just two matter of fact statements. As though I stated or the Bible stated two diametrically opposing statements out of the clear blue? I did not even choose the statements. Tarzan did in an earlier debate. Tarzan I must ask. Do you seriously expect the audience to believe that? You took two statements out of the Bible and "said" they were diametrically opposing statements. This predicated the code in the start of this debate from you! (A & ~A) You put those statements in this "proof". Tarzan is using the resolution to state that the concept of symbolic language or the symbolic "proof" of opposing statements cannot be reconciled. I am asserting that the values contained there in can be reconciled. Very simple. From his first round post: Galiban's conclusion in his "logical" argument is "(A . B)" or "A and B are both true." With our above recategorization, his conclusion becomes "A and ~A are both true." This is a logical impossibility. The conjunction is necessarily always false. I have been the whole time arguing that the conjunction was poorly used. How is that hard to understand? I am debating that context does have a significant impact and statements can be reconciled when the additional values are inserted! Tarzan's proof was flawed when dealing with the context of the Bible. Tarzan's first post clearly recognizes the 5 additional values from my "proof". You are attempting to use the resolution to constrain this debate to the fact that Logical contradictions cannot be reconciled. That is only true if you ignore context. Your first statement states just that. I am asserting the opposite! Hence the argument. Tarzan proceeds to state this in his last rebuttal: ""My opponent's entire argument revolves around adding more qualifiers to the statements to remove them from the realm of contradiction. However, when additional qualifiers are added, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and are completely irrelevant to this debate."" Does anyone see the concession that directly concedes the entire debate from his first statement? He is completely stating that when more qualifiers are added to these statements they are no longer diametrically opposing statements. That is fulfilling the resolution and my "proof". It is completely logical to add additional values to two existing values and to make them not opposing. Hence opposing statements are logically resolved to then become true. I have asserted NOT that you are ignoring fundamental logical statements, but you are ignoring lateral thinking by such an action (writing out a simple logical equation rather than a complex one). Redefining the debate as though somehow we are debating just the below statements is absurd: A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. We are debating specifically and fundamentally not whether (A &~A) is inherently a wrong way to write some "thing", but whether you wrote the code wrong from the statements. Inherently logical code is pointless without an originating statement. Are we sitting around pondering "A". I take a tug on my pipe while staring off…. "A. It makes the sound of aaaaaa….." A statement of opposites (A & ~A) if NOT STANDING ON ITS OWN can always be reconciled. Specifically diametrically opposing statements can and will always be reconciled with context, because they hold a value within context,which is what I am arguing against your assertion. Logical code is written to reflect statements and not vice versa. You concede this. ""However, when additional qualifiers are added, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and are completely irrelevant to this debate."" I am not asserting that "sentential" symbolic language as fundamentally wrong but your usage. (A & ~A) is not always accurate and can be reconciled. Not the logic of the symbolic statement but the values they hold! How many ways can I state this profound concept. I am not arguing that the mathematical system is flawed but those who use it. If those who use it are flawed then it will be flawed. It can be reconciled if the values contained within are not independent stand alone values. The resolution does not state that the Symbolic code cannot be reconciled. The resolution is rather asserting "statements". Those statements have value. Values can be reconciled with other values! Lets look at the resolution again: Diametrically Opposing STATEMENTS (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True In the same way I am not arguing that two statements out of the clear blue, that are opposing statements are not opposing, but that statements that are diametrically opposing statements can always logically be reconciled by context. That was clear from the start, which you stated, and the comments. You are being deliberately and academically dishonest at this point to suggest that my code was even suggesting that two statements out of the blue was in question. IF YOU RECALL THERE WERE 5 VALUES IN MY ORIGINAL POST WHICH YOU COPIED. Do you have no understanding that (A & ~A) never "really" stand on its own? Do you think that I am even suggesting that this debate is not about context? You are attempting to change the fundamentals of the argument in your first post. NOW TO FINISH ADDRESSING THE RESOLUTION: (A & ~A) Logically cannot be used to solve all problems. It can be logically resolved by using Predicate Calculus. In formality the original two concepts (Linear thinking and Lateral thinking) are called Propositional calculus and Predicate calculus. See here for definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org... The area of symbolic logic called propositional logic, propositional calculus …studies the properties of sentences formed from CONSTANTS, … Predicate logic, originally called predicate calculus, expands on propositional logic by the introduction of variables,… If you recall the original definitions of lateral and linear you will see they match up. Propositional = Constants. Predicate = Variable or quantified. To conclude this with a logical argument: When you are studying the Bible you cannot just look at two statements that appear to be opposing, you must look at it with all variables otherwise you wind up Looking like Tarzan, "half naked hanging from a Tree." Predicate Logic will solve all logical fundamentals of the Bible. Not Tarzan's disingenuous "proofs".