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

Some 90% of my opponent's rebuttal is a complete red herring. However, let us examine the relevant parts: >>"Tarzan is asserting a simple logical proof by assuming the value of the second statement as false." INCORRECT - the conjunction itself is false regardless of the relative truth value of the individual statements. For the conjunction to be true, the statements inside MUST BOTH BE TRUE. This is clearly impossible because if one of them is true, the other is necessarily false. >> "He is asserting that these two statements (see his above argument) are inherently opposites. I would concur." Readers, remember this. >> "However, two opposites can co-exist and both be true. This is where Tarzan is attempting to confuse the issue. By stating (A & ~A) can never co-exist he is attempting to prove the illogical nature of the Bible with a simple logical proof." INCORRECT - two opposites in conjunction CANNOT both be true. The only person confused on this issue is Galiban. (A & ~A) can never be logically true in conjunction regardless of the statements involved. >>" His logic fails in the fact that the FALSE value is ASSUMED for logical purposes. It is not necessarily a false statement." INCORRECT - the false value is not assumed - it is the necessary and only resolution of (A & ~A). >>" I hate you. I love you. A 13 year old Girl possesses both these statements and both statements are true. Resolution: She hates her Father and loves her mother. By inserting additional values to the statement we see that both statements are true. The value of "you" changed." You are a VERY confused individual. If you consider these statements with any sort of proper understanding it is plain to see that the logical implications of the statements are: I hate father. I love mother. Thus, the conjunction would be more along the lines of (~F & M). This can obviously be true. ********************************************* Galiban tries to back out of his earlier egregiously flawed model by positing extra pieces to the proposition. In his original line, we see: A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. Logically, (A & B) or (A & ~A) Now he wants to change it to: A = God does punish the children for the sins of the father when they are collectively children of a nation that uniformly goes against God's will. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father in the form of penal substitution. Logically, [(C -> A) & (P -> B)] Small wonder he considers the second to resolve the conflict. However, AFTER his changes to the logic, the statements are no longer diametric opposites. ******************************************** >> "Tarzan claims logic as his "great breakthrough" but as you see that what he ignores is the math behind logic. He ignores the very value system that is in our language." Galiban seems to be quite confused as to what I assert. I assert that opposites cannot be logically resolved as true. If he views this as a great breakthrough, I suggest he retake basic logic. This has been around for hundreds of years - I do not pretend it is great in any way, merely that it is obvious even to a child. >> "Tarzan is attempting to ignore the value change of punishment (and also though I did not draw out the full complexity within the proof, the value change of fathers). He is doing that with a lot of verses." If one reads the original statement that Galiban posted, it is quite obvious that he did not offer any further explanation of punishment or fathers. I'm a little puzzled why he considers this debate to be about the Bible - the resolution does not mention the Bible at all. >> "His logical "proof" does not in anyway apply to the statements. He is using simple logic and ASSUMING values of statements, disregarding the fact that contextual criticism of any document or statement requires complex logic or values to be assigned by the context." Once again, Galiban demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of basic logic. (A & ~A) can NEVER be resolved as true. It's quite simple. Adding context to a statement changes the logical conjunction to something more like (A & B). However, his original argumentation contains NO CONTEXT AT ALL. ********************************************* Readers, this debate is not about the bible. This debate is about whether or not (A & ~A) can be resolved as true. In any logical argument, when the conclusion is (A & ~A), one of the premises MUST be false, because the conclusion is logically incoherent. Galiban's argument on this topic follows along the lines of "Well, diametric opposites can't really be resolved, but if you add some other properties to the statements so they are no longer opposites, they can." He even states something similar to this ("We see when the one value of punishment in the "diametrically opposing statements" changes both statements become true. They are no longer opposing statements in that they are now two separate statements.") I submit that his line of reasoning is concession of the debate. Regardless of the content of the premises, (A & ~A) can never be resolved as true. AFFIRMED.