Have a look at this here website:
http://proofthatgodexists.org/
Step through the 'quiz', see what happens. I'd be interested in seeing the 4-ch'ers responses.
>How was Kim Il-Sung punished? He tyrannized his people for 50 years and died of old age, where is the justice? Don't say it's because he died-- that happens to everyone. Nor that he'll be punished in the afterlife-- I don't believe in an afterlife yet.
What does your belief have to do with whether or not God punishes people in the afterlife? What is his punishment according to your worldview, and how do you know this?
>Held accountable when? You are presupposing God again.
When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
>But I believe it's not true and I do know things.
That's why the Bible teaches that you DO know God but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1, 18-20)
>They all say that I know the truth deep down, as it is imprinted in my heart. If I have no previous knowledge of any of the religions, how do I tell who is right?
You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
> You do an internal critique of each worldview and test for arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, and whether or not they can support rationality.
...and christianity ends up somewhere at the bottom of the pile. You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
You have repeatedly failed to support this argument.
> You have to be pretty selective and creative in your reading to think it isn't completely internally inconsistent.
examples plx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible
One very telling phrase is:
> The Roman Catholic Christian view (especially since the Second Vatican Council) holds that the Bible is inerrant only in the things that God intended to reveal, the inconsistencies being deemed not to belong to these, or being deemed to be figurative and/or allegory.
In other words, very selective and creative reading is required.
Maybe for Catholics, but not for me.
Besides, no one here has yet given justification for the rationality one would use to evaluate the Christian worldview anyway.
Nevermind that this is partially copypasted, but you just seem to always dodge answering this simple question.
Why would someone who believes in a god which is, in all characteristics, exactly like the christian god, with a book exactly like the bible, just that it also says that:
be wrong, while you would be right?
Important hints, since you didn't get it the last 20 or so times:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Just answer the question. Why would this person be wrong, while you would be right?
So how do you explain away all the inconsistencies in the bible, then?
I interpret the Bible according to my presupposition that it is the inspired infallible word of God. What you interpret as an inconsitency, I would not. That is not say that I understand every facet of the Bible, but since it gives the only preconditions for intelligibility, and the logic with which one uses to argue against anything, I find myself on a firm epistemological foundation.
>It does not matter if someone actually believes in this. It is possible for someone to believe in this, that is enough.
It is possible for someone to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too, but without justification for rationality, such a belief is irrelevant.
I deal with real worldviews. If you care to posit one, I will be happy to refute it.
>>276
DO NOT.
ATTEMPT.
TO.
DODGE.
THE.
QUESTION.
Read carefully:
So, do not, yet again, dodge this question and blabber about how you have never heard about such a world view (It doesn't matter, you are not all-knowing), about how I cannot account for the logic I use (Someone who believed in this could make this exact argument against you), about spaghetti monsters of any sort (No monsters here), about how no one actually believes in this (How would you know?), or about how this is christian religion anyways (It is not, this religions god denies the existance of the christian god, and since when does god lie?).
Then again, pretty much everyone who reads this has probably noticed that you either really do not understand the argument, or that you knowingly dodge the question because you cannot answer it.
So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
For reference, see >>271, or why not http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html.
PS:
> I deal with real worldviews.
No, you deal only in arguments you can defeat, and dodge those you can't.
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DODGE THE QUESTION.
The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
I am not dodging your question. I am telling you that it is irrelevant. Until you give evidence for such a worldview, all you are doing is positting an impossible hypotheitcal, and asking me if it could be possible. My answer is no. Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
Why are you dealing in hypotheticals anyway, just tell me what you really believe and I will be happy to refute it.
> Such a worldview is not possible because it is contrary to the only worldview which gives justification for universal, abstract invariant laws and the uniformity of nature.
In other words... It is impossible because you are right and it is wrong? So basically you presuppose that you are right?
>So if you don't explain the inconsistencies away, do you then assume that any two contradictory statements are both absolutely true? I can see why you're having trouble with logic, if that's the case.
Look, you assume that the statements are contradictory because of your presupposition that the Bible is not infallible, I on the other hand look for the proper context and translation which shows that the statements are in fact not contradictory.
The difference is that I can account for the logic which says that contradictions are not allowed, while you cannot. Tell me why, according to your worldview, are contracictions not allowed? Once you do that, we can examine the texts.
Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
>So basically you presuppose that you are right?
No, I presuppose that God exists, and that the Bible is His infallible word. With such a presupposition I can account for 'rightness' and 'wrongness' and the very logic YOU use to try to argue against my presuppositions, while you cannot.
>Ok, then explain why http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html does not, in fact, contain any contradictions.
As soon as you tell me why contradictions are not allowed according to your worldview. You see if they are allowed, I would be wasting my time.
This is a very simple request, but I know why you ALL are avoiding it.
They are not allowed because:
This can't be right, now, can it?
>The beauty of all you bold anonymous posters is that you can duck my questions and say "well that wasn't me you asked."
And why would that matter? You are trying to argue against arguments, not against people, right? Also, the burden of proof is upon you, since you are trying to proove somthing, while people arguing against you are trying to disprove you. People who are not trying to prove someone wrong can ignore arguments and just try a new approach, one succesful approach is enough. People who are trying to prove that their argumentation is correct can not, since they have to show that each and every argument, even possible argument, is invalid.
Anyways...
Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted. This means:
Why would I be wrong while you would be right?
Read the challenge again, I asked you to explain why contradictions are not allowed according to YOUR worldview.
I know why they are not allowed according to MY worldview. You demonstrate my point very well though, you cannot account for the laws of logic apart from my worldview. Thank you.
Are you questioning my faith? I am already having a crisis here since it seems that my beliefs mean God does not exist, are you trying to make this worse?
"People who are not trying" should be "People who are trying". Sorry, typo'd.
>Proof that god exists? There is none. So why such a long convresation about something we already know? Believing in a god takes faith, not fact or rational thinking of any kind.
How do you know that the reasoning you use to make this statement, is valid? I submit that you have blind faith in your ability to reason.
>Ok. You don't understand, that's rather sad but oh well. I'll make it clearer for you, if that is even possible.
I belive in what >>273 said, I was just converted
Support your worldview please. What is the name of your god, what is the Bible of your worldview, and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
>>293
As of all of this mattered, but ok, I'm going to go along with your little game of "me no understand".
>What is the name of your god,
>what is the Bible of your worldview
Your bible, with all names that would make it the christian bible changed to their reverse version, and >>273's statements added.
>and what are the texts from your Bible which justify logic and the uniformity of nature?
For that, you can just look at http://proofthatgodexists.org/ (Same changes as in my bible apply)
Same question.
Are you refusing to offer your guidance to a fellow christian in need, by not responding to >>287?
A christian is not allowed a crisis of faith? I am asking you for guidance to resolve this crisis and bring me back into the fold! Why do you deny me this?
If you just change the names, then it IS the God of Christianity but in a different 'language.' Not all languages say the name of God the same way. What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
300
>>300
And still no justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature outside of God, from anyone here.
How can you call yourself a Christian if you refuse to help those who come to you for guidance? Did Jesus ever turn away those who came seeking his help? You have stated that you can resolve this riddle that is causing me to turn away from God, yet you refuse to do so! Why?
>What was positted, however, is nothing like just changing the names, a denial of the God of Christianity was included. For that I would need to see YOUR bible, and the justification for it, so I could properly refute it.
Bla, bla, "me no understand", bla, bla. Basically, you're still dodging.
Here is an easy, step by step guide:
You have no excuse left. Answer.
By the way, where do you get the justification for your reasoning anyways? How can you logically argue against me without borrowing from my worldview? Remember, my worldview is the only worldview that give a justification for the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.
I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
> If God did not exist, rationality would not be possible. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature apart from God. I see that you enjoy ducking this question as well.
People have a tendency to agree with each other. What can I say? That's human nature.
> When you employ rationality, logic and science, you presuppose God as well, you just do not admit it.
If this is your belief, then you think we are all denying the existence of God whom we know exists deep down, rather than simply not believing in God. If that is so there is no hope in arguing with you do not believe we are arguing logically, so you cannot take our claims at face value. This explains why you didn't want to read http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ -- it is an atheist site so the author is obviously lying to himself.
What you need to understand is that no atheist thinks he is "denying" anything. I honestly believe my position to be morally and logically coherent. The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
In twenty words or less, the fact that people can agree upon things such as logic is not sufficient evidence for God's existence.
shitty thread wasshoi
>>307
Then why don't you use sage to add such insightful statements?
When the thread is already at the top, does it really matter whether people like >>307 use sage?
>The mere existence of a generally agreed-upon system of logic and morals does not prove to me that someone had to create it. It says to me that people are smart. That's nice.
So, according to your worldview, the laws of logic are not 'true' they are merely agreed upon.
I could go on, but surely now you can see the absurdity of postulating that the laws of logic are 'agreed upon.' One last question though:
7. Is the law of non-contradiction univerasally binding on our arguments?
> 1. Take your bible.
My Bible is for my worldview. If you wish to postulate another worldview, you will have to produce your own Bible.
>I am not sure he even has a bible, he does not seem to be a very good christian!
I have a Bible, and I never said I was a good Christian.
> 1. When was the meeting?
The "meeting" started at the beginning of human history and it is still in progress.
> 2. How could you determine what 'smart' was before the laws of logic were agreed upon?
Obviously before there were any humans to observe, no human thought anything was smart.
> 3. Could they have agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, or is the law of non-contradiction universally binding?
Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
> 4. If enough people agreed that A could be not A at the same time and in the same way, would that law then be true?
According to me? No. According to "reality"? The problem with your thesis is that you think that reality includes human concepts such as logic and morals. There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
> 5. How many people does it take to agree upon a law of logic before it is valid?
Who will judge whether it is valid? Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid. I am doing the judging, so in my opinion, only I have to agree to make it valid.
> 6. Did the law of non-conradiction apply before humans came to this 'agreement?'
There are no immaterial things outside our minds. Therefore, the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it. This is a rather worthless statement about linguistics and you cannot in any way convince me that God exists with a reductio ad absurdum based on this.
Apparently not, since you refuse to help your brothers in their hour of need!
>>311
Which is it:
In any case, you have been given my bible, which significantly differs from your bible - after all, it says that there is no christian god - and you have been given my worldview. You have every little piece of information you asked for, even though that is not even required for my argumentation - remember, you have to defend against every possible argument, against every argument that could be made against you. All of this has been laid out for you on a level so low that your average 10 year old should be able to understand it. Tell me why I would be wrong while you would be right. If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
>Someone could have agreed upon that. It would be silly and it would force me to think of them as illogical but there's nothing stopping them.
It would only be 'silly,' and 'illogical,' because you would be evaluating them according to the 'real,' 'universal' law of non-contradiction.
>There is no such thing as logic or morals in the objective bubble of reality, only material things which we can observe.
Is this true, and how do you know?
>Since God does not exist nobody can perfectly objectively say what is valid.
Is that statement valid? (By the way, you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to know that God does not exist. In other words you would have to be God to say there is no God. A logical contradiction.
>There are no immaterial things outside our minds.
Prove this please.
>the concept of a "law of non-contradiction" is something within our minds, and was invented when we first thought of it.
Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
>In any case, you have been given my bible
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>and you have been given my worldview
No I haven't. Still waiting though.
>If you can not do so, for whatever reason it may be, don't bother with more lame excuses, just shut up and get out.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
> Is this true, and how do you know?
I know because I think it's logical. Obviously you disagree. We have different opinions. Or is your opinion the only right one, because you are a Christian and I am an atheist?
> Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before humans 'thought of' the law of non-contradiction?
That doesn't make any sense because we weren't around to observe it, so nobody could have made that judgement.
> Is that statement valid?
I say so.
> How do you account for 'immaterial entities' which you claim are 'in our minds' in your worldview.
Do you think that everything we think about is actually something God came up with? That's creepy.
> You also missed my last question. Does the law of non-contradiction apply to our arguments?
Yes, because we both agree it exists.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
The hillarity of this exchange is that we both know that you are lying. How embarrassing it must be to not be able to defend the worldview you really do hold. How do you sleep at night?
My worldview is out there for the world to see, and all you can do is come up with lame arguments to hide your own.
Funny, in a tragically sad kind of way.
(Also known as: "NO U" or "You do realize that the same works against you, do you?")
>You're not a Van Til or a Bahnsen
No kidding, but at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute, while you hide your identity and your worldview. Typical.
> at least I expose myself and my worldview for all to examine and attempt to refute
This is not a true claim - for it to be true, you would have to understand what "refute" means, and you have repeatedly showed that you do not.
He seems to be done arguing and has moved on to proclaiming himself the victor and making ad hominem attacks.
He does seem to have given up. It's too bad, I actually had some hope he would stir up interesting discussion at first, but he turned out to be just another internet loudmouth.
Which "God" was being discussed here?
The force behind the Big Bang?
The problem is, no one here was interested in interesting discussion. Discussion goes both ways. Look at how many times I asked people here to state and justify their own worldviews. Look at how many answers I got. If people cannot justify logic in their worldview, or don't believe in logic at all, a logical discussion is senseless.
Ciao
Nobody else claims to have a logical proof of God. You do, thus the discussion is about you. But since you can't support your own claims, you try to turn the discussion to another topic, viz. other people's worldviews. But nobody's falling for it. You can't escape the burden of proof that easily. If you make claims, you have to support them.
PS: You still haven't answered >>287.
My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
>My worldview is perfectly logical, yours is necessarily illogical because you include God in it.
Alright, for those of you who visit this thread, and don't want to read the whole thing to see what's going on, just read the claim in the above quote and watch the answers I get to my question.
What is your worldview, and how to you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
You still haven't answered >>287.
Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
> Look, buddy, I already answered this for you. All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things.
Is that statement absolutely true?
Absolute truth is an immaterial concept.
my worldview?
onano, ergo sum (i masturbate, therefore i am)
logic is logical (if only from a linquistical point of view)
I observe, but I am aware that my observations are not accurate identifications of what I observe.
Using the laws of logic, I can make general statements about my observations. Using various of such statements I construct an idea about my environment. I can test these statements with new observations, to change my ideas about the world. I a aware that, due to faulty observations, my worldview is prone to error.
I am capable of creating hypothetical systems in my mind. Here I have the luxury to use not generalizations as building blocks, but axioms. These axioms are absolutely true within my hypothetical construct.
I don't believe that I can use the concept of absolute truth outside hypothetical constructs and in the world that I observe.
This all in reaction to >>333
>What is your worldview, and how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
>P.S. Don't hold your breath expecting anyone to answer this, I surely don't.
I think I have stated why I can't use the concept of 'absolute' on the real world within my worldview. I think it is fair to say that I can only think in my worldview. Until I expand my worldview - while keeping it coherent - I won't be able to use 'absolute' as a concept about the real world.
I recognize the possible existence of a God. However, without being able to observe this God, without being able to take notice of its existence, I cannot state anything about its existence. God will have to show himself to me.
Furthermore, I understand that I do not know the origin of the world, of myself, of the laws of logic. I do not know what they are made of either. Should I care? I don't know. I will only care once I know that the answers to these problems exist, and that they can be found by my own efforts. There is only one way this can happen: only by learning the answer will I believe there is an answer. A flawed option is to trust someone who I believe to have found such answers. I will not go that road.
perhaps I'm writing this as a tribute to the other people who showed interest in this thread, and who took effort in voicing their opinions. >>339, its not logic that convinces people, its the way you convey this logic. I advise you to read some books about logic if you want to continue this project. I advise you even more to take a course about logic in a college or university, because that generally helps more than books.
It's universally true in my mind. To you, I can only assume, it is not true, but for me it is perfectly true. I don't think you understand relative judgement yet.
>It's universally true in my mind.
This is a logical contradiction. Is it universally true, or is it only true in your mind? It cannot be both.
What if the universe exists only in my mind?
(lol solipsism)
>>342
Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it." Because I can't think of any other meaning for "universal."
In which case the statement, "Absolute truth is an immaterial concept," is not universally true. I know my dad for one thinks that absolute truth exists in some nether dimension which can be occasionally grasped.
>Okay, I assume then that by "universally" you mean "everyone agrees upon it."
No, that is actually the exact opposite of what I mean. Universally true means objectively true, or true for all people, at all times, despite personal opinion.
So is your statement: "All immaterial concepts exist only in our minds. Reality only contains material things," universally true?
uhm, why are you avoiding >>340? you set up a challenge, you damn better not chicken out after somebody takes it.
How to win every argument, by Proofthatgodexists
Remember, the fourth step is crucial!
correct, let me expand it with the following frequently used technique to display suppreme logic.
"Is it absolutely true that" insert the main point of other persons argument here to make it sound that you are actually listening "is true?"
>>347
But is it universally true that the fourth step is crucial?
yes. given the possibility of reflection, future arguments may be lost, due to confusion. Then not every argument will be won.
>uhm, why are you avoiding >>340? you set up a challenge, you damn better not chicken out after somebody takes it.
Read the challenge again, I asked people to state their worldview and how they account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart form God. His 'masturbatory' worldview is not worthy of response, and he could not account for logic outside of God. This is my point. Those who claim logic exists, and use it, without acknowledging God, are trespassers on the Christian worldview. As you all will see, this trespassing is not going unnoticed.
Except that those who do acknowledge god as you do run into contradictions! Why is that?
I don't run into contradictions. Where did you get that idea?
The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview. Look, I am not going to get into apparent Biblical contradictions here (none of which detract from the central message by the way), surely you people are internet savvy enough to Google them.
Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved. You have faith in the logic you use to criticize my worldview. My worldview, at least, can account for this logic, yours cannot.
Why don't you direct me to the line where you account for the laws of logic outside of God, I can't find it.
I just read through the whole thread. Some of it was quite painful. But I'm glad I did. And this is still going on! Heheh. Now it's Spengbab time.
Hi, my name is Jason. And my world view is a bit of Objectivism, with knobs on. I speak only for myself. I can honestly agree to every stage of the argument on the proofthatgodexists.org site. Except the last step.
>How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic
Okay, here goes~
To be is to be something, to be self-identical. A is A, the rest follows from that. Non-contradiction flows from the fact of identity (A = A, so A isn't not A), and so on. 'Logical' and 'illogical' are adjectives that are properly applied to reasoning and ideas. A line of reasoning can break the law of non-contradiction. That makes it illogical. Logic is universal because existence is universal.
How do I know? I've seen it. I see (and hear and taste etc.) things in reality. Whatever they are, they're themselves. But... how do I know that fact is universal? Could it not happen, one day, that I encounter some rare and marvellous sort of thing that isn't itself? No. Never. For me to encounter such a thing it would have to be encounterable. Not not encounterable. This magic thing must be at least something. It must have an identity. Why not a self-contradictory identity, then? Consider the possibility of it being encounterable and not encounterable simultaneously. No, I don't have to consider thing because this is not a possibility. It's arbitrary nonsense. If anyone wishes to seriously put forward a case for this possibility... that would be interesting.
Eh.. that's enough for one post.
is it truly so hard to read beyond the first few lines?
your challenge was two parts.
1) give a differing worldview from yours
2) account for the laws of logic outside of god
I have provided 1, and I say that within my worldview it is impossible to answer 2.
However, I don't see failure at 2 as a failure of my worldview.
Ah yes, criticism of the site. The argument...
>The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This premise:
>without Him you couldn't prove anything.
Can you prove this? Why accept this point?
> The glaring problem with your assessment is that you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to criticize MY worldview.
Please justify why this is a "glaring problem".
> Look, I am not going to get into apparent Biblical contradictions here (none of which detract from the central message by the way)
That's how they detract from your message. Now, please refute this argument.
> Some explanations I am satisfied with, some I am not. I, however, have faith that those I am not satisfied with can be resolved.
So in other words, your proof of god rests on having faith, and not logic. Right? Then why bother with the proof in the first place, when you could just have faith without building a faulty proof?
Thanks for your input.
>A is A, the rest follows from that.
The law of identity is not a given. Certainly in what most non-theists consider a random universe, A could be B tommorow.
>Logic is universal because existence is universal.
These naturally do not necessarily follow, even so, universal knowledge is reserved for the Omniscient, and those to whom He has revealed knowledge.
>It's arbitrary nonsense. If anyone wishes to seriously put forward a case for this possibility... that would be interesting.
Well, having read this thread, you would have seen at least one person posit that the laws of logic are NOT universal. (the rest have mostly been silent on the matter).
>I have provided 1, and I say that within my worldview it is impossible to answer 2.
However, I don't see failure at 2 as a failure of my worldview.
> Can you prove this? Why accept this point?
This is proven with transcendental logic, i.e. the impossibility of the contrary. God is the necessaroy precondition for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature by the imposibility of the contrary. I am here to refute contrary proposals, but as you see they are few and far between.
There is no refutation necessary there. An "apparent" contradicition, does not a 'real' contradiction make. Naturally we will approach any interpretation of any apparent contradiction according to our presuppositions. You will seek the contradiction, I will seek the explanation. The difference being that only my worldview can account for the logic we use to talk argue about contradictions in the first place.