I thought I knew what it was, but in my debate with a theist (which I'll post when completed), he brought it up and I told him to explain it so that we get a clear understanding of the argument I have to deal with.
here's how he started it:
"ok johnny here is my view of the T.A.:
Law of Identity
Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car. ... Read More
Law of Non-Contradiction
Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
"I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
Noteone: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes. With me so far?"
uh... I don't see where he's going with that in relation to support for God. Is anyone else familiar with the TA that can sum it up for me? We can talk about debunking it too.