Teach me about contradictions

[Darkstar]

"I do not feed cats. My name is Paul. I do feed cats on a Sunday."

Contradiction. The first statement has no qualifiers, so it should be a contradiction. I know that apologists scramble to claim that there is some sort of invisible implied qualifier that gets them off the hook when dealing with Bible contradictions, but I don't think that could be construed here (even as a stretch), since there is no context.

[John V]

You can likely find a definition of contradiction which applies here, but I voted No. I view it as a general and specific statement on the same topic.

One statement may be more general than the other, but they contradict since both statements can't possibly be true.

Yes, that's why I first said that it can be a contradiction.

To me the issue is how a reasonable person would take the statements.

Suppose you're discussing driving and someone says, "I never speed."

Another time the person is discussing the time their child was very seriously injured or ill and says, "I drove 75 on the way to the hospital" (75 being speeding).

Technically, these two statements are contradictions.

What would you take away from them?

Personally, I'd assume that the never statement was a general rule of the person, but it could be overridden as necessary.

I wouldn't conclude that the person was a liar or delusional based on the contradiction.

[paulpablo]

One statement may be more general than the other, but they contradict since both statements can't possibly be true.

Yes, that's why I first said that it can be a contradiction.

To me the issue is how a reasonable person would take the statements.

Suppose you're discussing driving and someone says, "I never speed."

Another time the person is discussing the time their child was very seriously injured or ill and says, "I drove 75 on the way to the hospital" (75 being speeding).

Technically, these two statements are contradictions.

What would you take away from them?

Personally, I'd assume that the never statement was a general rule of the person, but it could be overridden as necessary.

I wouldn't conclude that the person was a liar or delusional based on the contradiction.

I'm confused.
That's twice now you have said it's a contradiction yet you voted no it's not a contradiction.

You just said " I wouldn't conclude that the person was a liar or delusional based on the contradiction"

And earlier you said it could be a contradiction.

You went from saying no it isn't, to saying it could be, to saying it is but the person making the contradiction isn't delusional. Which is fair enough but the question wasn't if the person was delusional or not.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Is it fair to say a person who believes contradictions are not contradictions is delusional?

[John V]

I'm confused.
That's twice now you have said it's a contradiction yet you voted no it's not a contradiction.

You just said " I wouldn't conclude that the person was a liar or delusional based on the contradiction"

And earlier you said it could be a contradiction.

You went from saying no it isn't, to saying it could be, to saying it is but the person making the contradiction isn't delusional. Which is fair enough but the question wasn't if the person was delusional or not.

Maybe my position can be summed up as, "Yes, it's a contradiction...so what?"

In a religious context, the point of trying to establish a contradiction is generally to challenge inerrancy. If you establish a difference between statements, you've established a contradiction, but not necessarily a contradiction which challenges inerrancy. It could be that the difference is due to different audiences, different circumstances, etc. These do not challenge inerrancy. So, it seems that you're using a broad definition of contradiction, while your interlocutors are using this more specific meaning.

[Rampant.A.I.]

There he goes again, redefining words to move the goalposts.

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind; that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Biblical_inerrancy

[paulpablo]

I'm confused.
That's twice now you have said it's a contradiction yet you voted no it's not a contradiction.

You just said " I wouldn't conclude that the person was a liar or delusional based on the contradiction"

And earlier you said it could be a contradiction.

You went from saying no it isn't, to saying it could be, to saying it is but the person making the contradiction isn't delusional. Which is fair enough but the question wasn't if the person was delusional or not.

Maybe my position can be summed up as, "Yes, it's a contradiction...so what?"

In a religious context, the point of trying to establish a contradiction is generally to challenge inerrancy. If you establish a difference between statements, you've established a contradiction, but not necessarily a contradiction which challenges inerrancy. It could be that the difference is due to different audiences, different circumstances, etc. These do not challenge inerrancy. So, it seems that you're using a broad definition of contradiction, while your interlocutors are using this more specific meaning.

Well as I said there's this verse in the quran.

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

So finding a contradiction in the quran probably deserves more than a "So what?"

It's interesting that you say the Muslims I am putting this point across to have a specific meaning for what a contradiction is.

I have asked them an entirely separate question on the Islamic forum which is if this isn't a contradiction, what would a contradiction look like.

They have only responded by giving further argument to what contradictions aren't.

But I'm expecting some interesting replies.

[John V]

Well as I said there's this verse in the quran.

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

So finding a contradiction in the quran probably deserves more than a "So what?"

Same point - you may be applying a different meaning to contradiction than the quran is.

Note that this is a general interpretation issue, and not specific to religion. In my first semester of physics, they taught us Newton's laws without qualifiers. In my third semester, we were told they weren't really laws as they break down at high speeds and low masses. No one yelled contradiction! and stomped out of the class. We understood that the teaching in the first semester was appropriate for us at the time. But, by some definitions it was indeed a contradiction.

It's interesting that you say the Muslims I am putting this point across to have a specific meaning for what a contradiction is.

I'm speaking in general. I obviously don't know what these specific people are thinking.

[Faith No More]

I've got to say I side with the Christian on this issue, especially given something like the bible that is a collection of several different books. "Contradictions" like this may just be due to context and don't actually constitute an error.

[ManMachine]

"I do not feed cats. My name is Paul. I do feed cats on a Sunday."

I want to know if this is or isn't a contradiction.

In my mind it is a contradiction.

I'm on an islamic forum right now and I've asked them why they believe god does forgive association with him if a person repents. In the quran it clearly states,

Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin.

Making associations with god is what they believe all Christians do, it's also called committing shirk.

And they say it's because other verses say god forgives all sins including shirk if a person repents before they die to which I replied by asking doesn't that make it a contradiction. And they say no.

But anyway I don't want to talk about the quran verse in this thread because there's only one muslim on this forum now and the rest aren't too keen on the quran and I don't want people agreeing with me just because they don't like the quran.

So to make it fair I want you to tell me if there's a contradiction in the example that I typed down here.

I accept that maybe I'm confused with what a contradiction is but to me if someone says "I do not _____" Folllowed by a separate sentence of "I do _____ in specific circumstances" that's a contradiction. Because you can't do something in specific circumstances while not doing it at all.

The reason why I ask this is because even atheists on the Islamic forum seem to be offended by this question and are telling me I don't understand English, I want to know am I going insane? This seems like an obvious contradiction to me.

Your sentence is not an accurate representation of the argument in the Islamic text.

I do not allow people to feed cats in my life. However, as much as I don't like it I do allow people who associate with people who feed cats in my life.

Would be more accurate and would not be a contradiction. Might be a little conflicted but that's deities for ya.

MM