Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A proposition that appears to be or entail a contradictio... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A proposition that appears to be or entail a contradiction may not actually be a proposition at all.

    Divine Attributes
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If a proposition appears under careful scrutiny to be or entail a contradiction, it is questionable whether there is even a proposition before the mind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Before one can affirm a proposition as true one must understand it, but one cannot affirm as true a proposition that appears necessarily false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Apparent contradictions in propositions about God may reflect the limits of human cognition rather than the absence of propositional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's antinomies demonstrate that reason can generate genuine propositions that appear contradictory without thereby ceasing to be propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dismissing apparently contradictory statements as non-propositional forecloses legitimate inquiry into whether the contradiction is real or merely epistemic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege and Russell distinguished between a proposition lacking truth-value and a proposition being false, preserving propositional status even for paradoxical claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Liar Paradox ('This sentence is false') is treated by logicians as a genuine proposition with anomalous semantic properties, not as a non-proposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Divine Attributes

    Related

    Apparent contradictions in propositions about God may reflect the limits of huma...Before one can affirm a proposition as true one must understand it, but one cann...Dismissing apparently contradictory statements as non-propositional forecloses l...Frege and Russell distinguished between a proposition lacking truth-value and a ...
    +3 moreShow less
    If a proposition appears under careful scrutiny to be or entail a contradiction,...Kant's antinomies demonstrate that reason can generate genuine propositions that...The Liar Paradox ('This sentence is false') is treated by logicians as a genuine...

    Similar

    If a proposition appears under careful scrutiny to be or entail a cont...91%Before one can affirm a proposition as true one must understand it, bu...83%It is logically impossible to know of a proposition that it is true or...82%Necessarily false propositions are arguably not possible objects of be...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: divine-simplicity
    View source passageHide passage
    And so a mysterian move suggests itself: We are justified in maintaining both that God is simple and that God is free despite the fact that after protracted effort we cannot make logical sense of this conjunction. If we have good arguments for both limbs of what appears to be a logically contradictory dyad, it could be that the contradiction is merely apparent. The fact that the conjunction — God is simple and God is free — appears to us, and perhaps even necessarily appears to us, to be or rather entail an explicit logical contradiction is not a compelling reason to reject the conjunction. It...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit