[Avodah] dinosaurs

[T613K at aol.com]

From: Micha Berger _micha at aishdas.org_ (mailto:micha at aishdas.org) 
: I truly believe you  are not thinking logically here at all. Let's 
: say I, an adherent of Shitah  A, believe in dinosaurs -- not only that 
they 
: lived, but that they lived  millions of years ago. Let's say Ploni, an 
: adherent of Shitah B, believes  that I am an apikores. Let's say I also 
believe
: in EvE. Does that mean that  I must now simultaneously believe that there 
: WERE dinosaurs and at the  same time must believe that there WERE NO 
: dinosaurs?! ...  [--TK]

>>That exactly what I'm saying! The resulting paradox means  that when B
says that A's position is outside eilu va'eilu, A is compelled to  say
that it's B's position that is outside. Because to accept that both  are
true would be "not thinking logically here at all." 
.... EvE  says that
both are divrei E-lokim Chaim. Both are true.  << [--RMB]






>>>>>
 
"Divrei Elokim Chayim" IMO means that even the wrong position has  
something in it that is worthy of being studied.   In practice it may  mean that we 
do not at present know for absolutely certain which of the two  opinions is 
correct.  In some cases it also means that a  definitive conclusion cannot 
be reached until Moshiach comes.  It does  not mean that two irreconcilable 
opposites are both true.
 
 
In Aristotelian logic there is something called the Principle of the  
Excluded Middle.   Basically it is the principle that something cannot  be both 
true and not-true at the same time, or that there is something in the  middle 
between true and not-true.  (Of course there are areas where there  is  a 
spectrum of possibilities, but we are talking about things that  simply 
CANNOT have a spectrum -- e.g., whether a person is a mamzer or not,  permitted 
to marry or not)
 
You keep defining "Eilu v'Eilu" as "both are true, even if opposite."   To 
me that is logically impossible. ("I can believe six impossible things 
before  breakfast," said the Red Queen.  But I don't believe that's a mitzva,  
before or after breakfast.)
 
I have already indicated that I don't believe you are defining EvE  
correctly.  I define it as "both have sources, both have reason, both have  merit" 
-- but not "both are true."
 
However, it is possible that your definition of EvE and my definition are  
both true -- IF your definition of EvE is correct.  But, in that case, IF  
your definition is correct --  then that would imply that my definition is  
correct -- in which case your definition is wrong.
 
You know, I'm beginning to see your problem.....
 
 
 

--Toby Katz
==========



-------------------- 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091102/01f693e6/attachment-0002.htm>