Matt Fradd

I think that if somebody gives a reason for something that collapses into absurdity the moment it's out of his mouth, he hasn't really given a real argument.

that collapses into incoherence the moment it's out of its house.

What I mean by incoherence is this.

Everybody knows what inconsistency is.

If I said to you, that point of view is silly.

You know, that point of view is not silly.

I have contradicted myself.

It can't be both things in the same sense at the same time.

If, on the other hand, I say something like this.

Everything that everybody says is meaningless and no one can ever recover the intention of the speaker.

I want you to understand this.

This is on the test.

All right, that is incoherent.

I'm pulling out the rug from underneath my own claim.

And the absurdist philosophers, the nihilistic thinkers, I use the philosophers here too generously, then the absurdist thinkers, the nihilistic thinkers are all falling into absurdity.

I'd like to see, how can you give a good argument, for example, for incoherence?

If the argument itself is incoherent, you've really lost it.

If God didn't exist, there'd be nothing.

We wouldn't be here arguing about it.

There would be no universe in which we could even discuss the meaning of things or whether they have a meaning or anything like that.