Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

[tonychanyt]

That's a specious distinction, and the invocation of "first order logic" is nothing more than window dressing in that case. Propositions don't have to be exact negations to be contradictory, so all you seem to be aiming at is a tautological contradiction which is exactly useless.

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempted a bottom-up approach to confront this controversial issue that has been around for centuries and millenniums. I wanted debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind. I wrote in my OP:

All argumentations begin with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument. There is nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.​

I did not have any hope at all to resolve the controversy. My only hope was to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating any useful information in their bickering.

 

[Fervent]

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempted a bottom-up approach to confront this controversial issue that has been around for centuries and millenniums. I wanted debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind. I wrote in my OP:

All argumentations begin with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument. There is nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.​

I did not have any hope at all to resolve the controversy. My only hope was to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating any useful information in their bickering.

Propositions follow axioms, and often that's where the separation truly lies. First order logic is only useful if we are all working from the same axioms, but when it comes to issues of free will and determinism the issues tend to run far deeper than the propositions would allow. To demonstrate that the propositions I stated don't contradict, for example, it would take developing agreeable axioms to work from and then demonstration that there is a contradiction between your P3 and my P1. Your refutation is little more than a definitional shift, which is of no real value.

 

[John Mullally]

Let me explain my motivation. In this thread, I attempted a bottom-up approach to confront this controversial issue that has been around for centuries and millenniums. I wanted debaters to begin with a clear goal (proposition) in mind. I wrote in my OP:

All argumentations begin with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument. There is nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.​

I did not have any hope at all to resolve the controversy. My only hope was to get debaters to be more goal-oriented in their debates. Without this guiding structure (proposition), they tend to talk past each other without communicating any useful information in their bickering.

Total BS. Where did you communicate any useful information in this thread? Also, your goal did not include attentively listening and clarifying with examples what you were looking for in your vague ask. I was trying to follow your one-word example in the OP. My propositions were one-word versions of what Fervent stated. If you were interested you could have made an effort to bridge what I was saying.

 

[childeye 2]

If you think there is a contradiction, please present the two propositions that directly contradict.

Step 1: Please clearly state the two contradictory propositions and nothing else.

Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ________.

Proposition P2 = ________.

All argumentations begin with propositions. Without them, there is no formal argument. There is nothing to argue about. This is my only point in this thread.

Here, I'll do it:

P1 = The Creator is to blame for sin
P2 = The creature is to blame for sin

 

[tonychanyt]

Propositions follow axioms, and often that's where the separation truly lies.

So what axioms would you propose here?

 

[tonychanyt]

Total BS.

Can you quote my words and be specific?

 

[tonychanyt]

Here, I'll do it:

P1 = The Creator is to blame for sin
P2 = The creature is to blame for sin

That's pretty good. But they do not directly contradict

 

[childeye 2]

That's pretty good. But they do not directly contradict

Okay, how about this?

P1: The creature is to blame for sin.
P2: The creature is not to blame for sin.

 

[tonychanyt]

Okay, how about this?

P1: The creature is to blame for sin.
P2: The creature is not to blame for sin.

Right. After 67 posts, you are the first person who has properly listed a pair of contradictory propositions in this thread

 

[childeye 2]

Right. After 67 posts, you are the first person who has properly listed a pair of contradictory propositions in this thread

I'm not sure I feel smarter or dumber than I felt before. So, do we get to argue now? Because frankly P3: No one is to blame for sin is yet to be considered.

 

[tonychanyt]

I'm not sure I feel smarter or dumber than I felt before. So, do we get to argue now?

Smarter

OK, pick a key term from Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, and Determinism to characterize P2. Or choose a new one if you wish.

 

[childeye 2]

Smarter

OK, pick a key term from Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, and Determinism to characterize P2. Or choose a new one if you wish.

P3: No one is to blame for sin, is yet to be considered.

I would think determinism, but it seems arbitrary to apply it to P2.

 

[tonychanyt]

P3: No one is to blame for sin, is yet to be considered.

Sure, if you wish. You only need 2 contradictory propositions. In any case, you need to associate each proposition with a supporting side from Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism, or freewill.

 

[childeye 2]

Sure, if you wish. You only need 2 contradictory propositions. In any case, you need to associate each proposition with a supporting side from Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism, or freewill.

I'm sure you're aware that to get good answers, one has to ask the right questions. I say that because propositions are not questions and I see this as either an exercise in futility or a long way around to get answers. With that in mind, I'm participating so as to help you accomplish some educational purpose.

P1: The creature is to blame for sin = free will
P2: The creature is not to blame for sin = determinism

 

[Fervent]

So what axioms would you propose here?

I'm not quite sure, though they would have to center on conditions for when an individual is responsible/blameworthy for their actions.

 

[tonychanyt]

I'm sure you're aware that to get good answers, one has to ask the right questions. I say that because propositions are not questions and I see this as either an exercise in futility or a long way around to get answers. With that in mind, I'm participating so as to help you accomplish some educational purpose.

P1: The creature is to blame for sin = free will
P2: The creature is not to blame for sin = determinism

At this point, you will need to prove that P2 is true.

Begin by defining determinism.

 

[tonychanyt]

I'm not quite sure, though they would have to center on conditions for when an individual is responsible/blameworthy for their actions.

That is not the purpose of an axiom. Axioms are given to characterize the (neutral) system of discourse, not to dictate the direction of any specific argumentation within that universe of discourse.

 

[Fervent]

That is not the purpose of an axiom. Axioms are given to characterize the (neutral) system of discourse, not to dictate the direction of any specific argumentation within that universe of discourse.

And without a distinct notion of when someone is blameworthy for their actions evaluating the statements involved is impossible. So an axiom that defines the conditions for blameworthiness is necessary if we are to develop a logical argument. Its not about dictating the direction, but having a clearly defined and agreed upon condition for what makes someone responsible for an action.

 

[childeye 2]

At this point, you will need to prove that P2 is true.

Begin by defining determinism.

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

 

[tonychanyt]

And without a distinct notion of when someone is blameworthy for their actions evaluating the statements involved is impossible. So an axiom that defines the conditions for blameworthiness is necessary if we are to develop a logical argument. Its not about dictating the direction, but having a clearly defined and agreed upon condition for what makes someone responsible for an action.

Sure, but that is not the purpose of an axiom. If you think it is, then give me one such axiom for this purpose here. Or just cite an accepted axiom from another domain of discourse.