The proposition "God can produce A from his absolute power," means that it is possible for God to produce A (because A in itself entails no contradictory propositions being simultaneously true), and A is not compatible with his existing statutes.
But if Converse Disquotation is rejected and Converse Disquotation* is adopted in its place, then Lois's acceptance patterns do not entail the contradictory (3) and (4) as (3) is simply false.
The argument that it is false assumes that "it is impossible for the same proposition to be true and false when propounded in the same language and understood in the same way by everyone hearing it", and proceeds to argue that the sophism is false because any proposition which entails its own contradictory is impossible, and therefore false.
Nelkin (2000) has questioned the coherence of dual standpoint theories on the basis of an argument for the claim that they entail commitments to contradictory beliefs about free will.
(3) It is common and quite attractive to believe in the existence of many of the elements on the left and on the right simultaneously, but it seems clear that the implications of that belief are often contradictory, entailing that one and the same piece of reality both can be otherwise and cannot be otherwise in the same way at the same time.
Among the others who defended Buridan's solution would have been Bonaventure, who, in the course of discussing one of Augustine's arguments for the existence of God (Soliloquies I.15)—i.e., that if no truth exists, then some truth exists; and if some truth exists, a First Truth exists records the objection that the first inference fails because no proposition can entail its own contradictory.
The commission is remarkably evasive about what this entails, and its reckonings are opaque, contradictory and buried in remote annexes.
More generally, analogical inference is a contradictory undertaking because it entails "entertaining a completely new thought about an I, that however is not me, but something absolutely different" (Lipps 1907, 708, my translation).
This perceived divide (secular = pro-evolution, religious = anti-evolution) can be a stumbling block to the teaching of evolution and other sciences, especially if students assume that the topic is going to be contradictory to their religion before hearing what it entails.
It entails eclipsing an important truth by lavishing attention on a contradictory aspect of the same reality.
