I would ask you to please not put words into my mouth. I did not say the cup is both in motion and not in motion with respect to the desk or table or the sun. You restated the proposition with your own properties. The proposition presented did not include your "with respect..." additions
I said "The cup on my desk is at rest." You added the "with respect..." to attempt to force the proposition into either (P or -P) As it stands, I would ask how you can prove the cup is both not at rest AND not in motion at the same time.
I do find it interesting though that you use the term "relative" when so many other absolutists out here uncompromisingly despise relativity.
You stated "You are attempting to use noncontradiction to negate noncontradiction." Did you rather mean that I am attempting to use contradiction to negate noncontradiction? Because yes, that is what I contend - using examples of (P and -P) to show that it is a tautological fallacy to only attribute (P or -P) to the use of propositions. I would have to ask you to explain how I might be attempting to use 'noncontradiction' to negate noncontradiction.
I disagree that a process of proof necessitates noncontradiction. This does not mean that things can't be proved by the use of noncontradiction. I simply contend that the basic law of noncontradiction should not be universal because there are things which can be proved that ARE contradictory.
Furthermore, if you intend to continue to throw in rhetorical devices like "I would ask you to name one, but I already know that you cannot." and "Provable ones, no less. Silly." and "Nice try, though. Any more?" it simply won't be worth either of our time to continue discussing this. The absolutists out here, moreso than others, tend to use this kind of language to fallaciously beef-up their own stance. If you continue it, and I don't respond, it might appear to others that you've won something. For me it will only mean you can't control your rhetoric.
You are pretty sensitive, Marc. I apologize for my insensitive and insulting rhetoric.
And no, I meant that you are trying to use noncontradiction, through your arguments, which by definition of being an argument, depend on noncontradiction, to negate the very same process you are using to attempt to negate it.
When you talk about velocity, by definition, you are talking about 'in respect to'. The cup is absolutely not in motion in relation to the desk and it is in motion in respect to the sun. This is not at all contradictory.
Can you state something that has an essential characteristic that is two contradictory things at the same time in the same way?
Marc, you say, "I would be happy to share with you at least one proposition that is both true and false at the same time. (The cup on my desk is at rest.)" Unfortunately, that statement is not both true and false at the same time; it is neither true nor false, owing to a lack of sufficient definition. Michael is correct. The definition of "at rest" intrinsically contains the notion of "relative to".
So no, no object in the universe is technically "at rest", considered in isolation. At minimum, no object in the universe is at absolute zero, so there's always some movement. Further, objects in our everyday sense are always quite divisible, so to begin with we have a bit of a rhetorical/definitional problem. Regardless, without taking into account a frame of reference, "at rest" doesn't begin to make any sense, so you're jumping the gun by assigning any truth value to the proposition, unless you're pretty sure that everybody is implicitly using the same frame of reference.
Michael's question stands: do you have an example of something that contains truly contradictory essential properties? Relative to a local gravity field, an arrangement of rocks and dirt can be a mountain or a valley, but not both. A god can be omnibenevolent or omnipotent, but not both. A numerical value can be 2 or 3, but not both.
Further, it's a pretty basic form of disproof to show a logical contradiction. If you are trying to show that logical contradiction need not negate the truth value of a proposition, you're pretty much throwing logic out the window as a truth-finding tool. It doesn't get much more fundamental than that. God, as typically construed, is either logically impossible owing to inherent contradictions, or so ill-defined as to be unworthy of consideration. Usually both. I am 100% certain that such a creature does not exist, because it cannot.
"Further, it's a pretty basic form of disproof to show a logical contradiction. If you are trying to show that logical contradiction need not negate the truth value of a proposition, you're pretty much throwing logic out the window as a truth-finding tool."
Yes. Your response follows exactly in line with what I am objecting to. Assuming an Axiom of (P or -P) ONLY means one will no doubt conclude ONLY either P or -P. It is very interesting that you say "Unfortunately, that statement is not both true and false at the same time; it is neither true nor false, owing to a lack of sufficient definition." because I am addressing that right now in another link.
I started a post on this very topic in the Philosophy Forum. It is called "The Law of Non-Contradiction?" It might better expose what I'm saying better than restating it here. So, I do hope you are ok with switching over there because I very much appreciate your responses.
LOL. I have been told that I am too sensitive before. So, thanks for accommodating me in this respects. It shows me you are, in fact, a reasonable individual - even if we disagree.
I have actually started a link on the Philosophy Forum. It's called "The Law of Non-Contradiction?" Another member is giving me good feedback. And it should expose my postion on this better than me restating it here.
"I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist."
The problem of course is the definition of the term.
I can safely say that i am 100% sure "some" god exists.
And i can safely say that i am 100% sure "some other" god doesn't exist.
I can also tell you that i am 100% sure that (currently) any potential existence of god is "irrelevant" for me. In order to change that one would not only have to proove that such a god exists but that his existence is actually relevant (which means his existence should make a measurable difference to his nonexistence).
There is no god.
This is a provable fact.