5
irresolvably contradictory.
13
For example, one can construct an argument "proving" that the
universe began with an uncaused cause as well as an argument "proving" that the world has
always been in existence.
14
In such cases, there is no conceivable way that both arguments can
be sound (since the universe cannot be both eternal and created). At the farthest extreme lies an
absurdity, which is a statement that is patently false or meaningless (e.g. "God is and is not").
15
Absurdities lack intelligibility, whereas both antinomies and paradoxes are at least intelligible.
The difference between the latter two is that some paradoxes are potentially resolvable, while
antinomies are not. The LONC is necessary in our search for truth. First, it shows that
contradictories, contraries, antinomies, and absurdities are false. Second, it serves a motivational
purpose with paradoxes, since it leads thinkers to recognize the problem with a paradox, and
then sets them on the task of attempting to resolve it. As a result, philosophers consider
paradoxes more intriguing and fruitful than the other challenges to the LONC. This point is
important because some have assumed that to label something a paradox necessarily means it is a
genuine contradiction. This just isn't true.
16
Before moving on, let us add two more terms to our discussion: concurrence and
mystery. Concurrence comes from the Latin "com" ("together" or "with") and "currere" ("to
run"). To say two things are concurrent can mean they intersect, run parallel, operate at the same
time, act in conjunction, or exercise jurisdiction over the same matter or area (by different
authorities).
17
I will use the term concurrence in a novel way to refer to a set of propositions or
arguments in which each member of the set expresses a truth that is extremely different from the
others (they seem to run "parallel"), yet all members accurately refer to the same object or event
(they intersect). Put another way: a concurrence is the conjunction of extremely different