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

Simple Logic vs. Complex Logic. Linear thinking vs. lateral thinking. I do realize some of the audience do not have knowledge of this field of study, but are here to learn and develop their skills in debate and logic. I am hoping to be better received with a higher character count. I will warn everyone I will be using simple definitions that contain larger meanings but for practical purposes and character constraints some study will have to be done on its own. What I am contending is that my opponent does not know how to apply and he does not understand the two distinctions between simple logic and complex logic. My opponent in all of his responses is unfamiliar with complex logic or the "proofs" contained in that field of study. (Lateral thinking is the most recent word usage and most prominent on the internet). He has showed this overwhelmingly in the comments and many people have concurred with him. I will work to show the audience and Tarzan that all of my statements (which explained the veracity of my argument through lateral thinking in no less than three different ways) that addressed this field of study are all absolutely accurate. When everyone reviews this field of study they will see that I did not "make all this up". My opponent has criticized me abusively; citing that I did not understand simple logic. However, as I directly stated to him before, there were things I understood that he did not yet and it was obvious to me that Tarzan was only thinking about the perceived inconsistency with vertical or simple logic. Hence, we now have this debate. I will also work to show that my opponent with all of his statements in the comments has painted himself into a corner, by declaring my understanding flawed he showed he had no desire to think in complex or lateral logic and that he did not understand the difference. I will now proceed with the explanation: Tarzan started by assigning values to the two statements in the above arguments. When values are assigned we have now entered into mathematics. I will point to two types of math – Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry. Both types of math are completely viable. They are both 100% accurate. The only downside is one form can never solve the other's proofs. Euclidean geometry has served us for thousands of years. It has allowed us to build buildings and advance our culture. However, it completely fails when applied to the curvature of outer space. Einstein used non-euclidean geometry to "proof" the theory of relativity. However, without the curvature of outer space, non Euclidean geometry cannot work. This same type of mathematical structure is inherent in simple logic vs. complex logic. Simple logic (linear thinking) - assumes all values in a sentence are known values. Complex logic (Lateral thinking) - assigns or reassigns values; it works to discern values within a statement. We use both of them everyday but we encounter problems of communication when we use the wrong one in a conversation. To breakdown. http://www.folj.com... The very concept of lateral thinking is dealing with preconceptions, or mathematically - a pre-assigned value. The basic explanation: Let us read this following statement: Frank leaves home. When he tries to return, a man wearing a mask blocks his path. At this point most if not all people have in their mind that Frank left his home and came back and there was a masked thief blocking his way. Ultimately we have a couple of pre-assigned values in this statement when we first read it. Home = Where frank lives. Man wearing a mask = Thief or robber. Now with context we can reassign a value to these two "clear" dimensions. Baseball. Now the whole diametric within this statement changes. Both values change. Home = Home plate in a baseball diamond Man wearing a mask = Catcher. Basically in a mathematical statement to summarize this effect: The perceived value of this statement dramatically changed with the insertion of a new value. We have two values dictated by this new value (context). Tarzan is asserting a simple logical proof by assuming the value of the second statement as false. He is asserting that these two statements (see his above argument) are inherently opposites. I would concur. 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. His logic fails in the fact that the FALSE value is ASSUMED for logical purposes. It is not necessarily a false statement. All values can be changed within a given statement as we saw with the Baseball example above. I will use another. I HATE YOU. I LOVE YOU. Two diametrically opposing statements. These clearly are opposing statements. However, that does not mean they cannot co-exist with both having a "true" value. However, what Tarzan really means though he poorly explains, is that God cannot hold to his "person" both statements with a "true" value. (God does and does not punish the children for the sins of the father) But again I will show that God can possess both statements in the above argument as true values. 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. To directly address the above argument we will use the statements to show a complex or "layered" proof: God punishes the children for the sins of the father. God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. We must see how the value of punish changes with two different statements: These are the basic statements. A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. These are the additional values. C = God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father. D = the children of the nation are punished for the national decisions. (((C->B)^(D->A))->(A . B)) We see now the value of punish has changed from: 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. (Defined as if one nation attacks another nation and the defending nation in their resistance kills children of the attacking nation, the children paid for the sins of the "fathers".) To: God does not punish the children for the sins of the father in the form of penal substitution. (Defined as some father just saying "Yeah I raped her, but my son will go to jail for me.") Just to give added context, in the cultures around the Israelites, sons could be punished for the crimes of their fathers. 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. (hint: it was why it is usually separated by a lot of words… like…. whole books…) 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. 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. 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.