Is absolute certainty possible?

Two propositions that contradict cannot be understood as true.

1. That CON conceedes the law of non-contradiction, that two contradicting propositions cannot both be true.
   
2. That CON claims that when two propositions contradict each other, neither of them is true. 
   

• The earth is round. But some claim it isn't. So because these claims contradict each other, neither one is true. So the earth is neither round nor "not round".
  
• So under this framework any truth can easily be destroyed simply by stating falsehoods, and everything is both not true and not false at the same time. 
  
• This framework obviously does not work, so it makes no sense to interpret his statement this way.
  

• If the universe exists, the statement is true. If the universe doesn't exist the statement is still true.
  
• If the universe both exists and doesn't exist, the statement is still true since at least one of the clauses were true. This is because I used INCLUSIVE OR. 
  
• Since the statement literally cannot be false, it MUST be true. Therefore we can have ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that it is true.
  

• We can have absolute certainty that this statement is true, because it specifies a framework under which the conclusion is ALWAYS true.
  

We cannot know everything in existence.

• I agree with CON that this is something we can be absolutely certain of. 
  

In the realm of mathematics and logic, absolute certainty is possible.

• Logic is in question here, and when applied to skepticism does not survive a burden of proof - as previously tried to do.
  

We can be absolutely certain of our own existence. René Descartes, the French philosopher, famously said, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”).

• Rene Descartes, said as well, that this claim was based on the basis of logic. Which is in question currently.
  

While empirical evidence is often subject to interpretation and further testing, there are cases where it can provide absolute certainty.

• Rene Descartes critique of this method of certain is valid: our senses can lie to us. And if there is a precedent in which these senses can lie to us, there is no reason for them to be in a constant state of being inaccurate. For example, someone who is unable to see but does not know everyone sees different will wholeheartedly say their senses are correct - even though it is inaccurate. However, the only difference now is that we cannot know if these senses are completely inaccurate - if a bus is actually a plane.
  

Analytic statements, or statements that are true by definition, also offer absolute certainty.

• This is on the basis of logic as well. At least how PRO described this.
  

Without non-contradiction, EVERY SINGLE PROPOSITION AND COUNTER PROPOSITION would be true at the same time, and skepticism would lose all meaning... So removing non-contradiction does not render absolute certainty an impossibility, to the contrary, it renders it an inevitability.

• What seems to be the argument:
  
• Non-contradiction is the inability for two proposition to contradict.
  
• If contradiction exists two propositions can contradict.
  
• Therefore, every single proposition is in a state of contradiction.
  
• And the continued argument seems to be:
  
• Every single proposition is in a state of contradiction.
  
• Certainty is to have "firm conviction that something is the case."
  
• We have firm conviction that something is the case that every single proposition is in a state of contradiction. (?)
  
• Therefore, certainty is inevitability.
  
• Incorrect. Without non-contradiction, every single proposition and counter proposition would be possibly true at the same time.
  
• It's like saying "good coffee exists" concludes to "all coffee is good."
  
• For this to be valid the premise must be that if contradictions exists all propositions exist in a state of contradiction. Which is not the hypothetical position hold.
  
• There is also another dimension of how this is incorrect.
  
• What this seems to come from is the hypothetical scenario in the fifth paragraph. It is a hypothetical - not proposed truth. So the statement of "contradiction exists" is still up to question, and so, does not prove certainty even if PRO's reasoning was somehow valid.
  

Two propositions that contradict cannot be understood as true.

There are only two valid ways to interpret this statement:

1. That CON conceedes the law of non-contradiction, that two contradicting propositions cannot both be true.
   
2. That CON claims that when two propositions contradict each other, neither of them is true. 
   

• What is meant by this is that two proposition that contradict cannot be conceived. In a easier test of what this means: it cannot be imagined. This statement is reasoned true comes from the previous paragraph.
  
• CON is also not "conceding" anything; the reasoning laid out has been under the assumption that non-contradiction is true. It just cannot be known for certain.
  

THE UNIVERSE either EXISTS or DOESN'T EXIST.

This statement cannot be false, since it encompasess all contingencies:

• If the universe exists, the statement is true. If the universe doesn't exist the statement is still true.
  
• If the universe both exists and doesn't exist, the statement is still true since at least one of the clauses were true. This is because I used INCLUSIVE OR. 
  
• Since the statement literally cannot be false, it MUST be true. Therefore we can have ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that it is true.
  

According to the law of non-contradiction, THE UNIVERSE either EXISTS or DOESN'T EXIST.

• We can have absolute certainty that this statement is true, because it specifies a framework under which the conclusion is ALWAYS true.
  

Argument for existence:

P1: Something exists if an argument exists.

P2: This argument exists.

C: Something exists.

Argument from skepticism:

P1: If skepticism did not exist, we would accept every proposition we were faced with and feel absolute certainty. 

P2: We don't have absolute certainty about everything

C: Skepticism exists.

Premise 1 is obvious. If you don't disbelieve anything and require evidence then you will accept every propositon you hear and feel absolute certainty in them.

Premise 2 is necesary for CON's case. If we did have absolute certainty about everything, then absolute certainty would be possible. 

So the conclusion holds. If we don't feel absolutely certain about everything, then we can be absolutely certain of the fact that we are skeptical.

We cannot know everything in existence.

• I agree with CON that this is something we can be absolutely certain of. 
  

• The first premise is not necessarily true. Feeling absolutely certainty is different from belief; belief can exist without certainty. For example, if someone told another they have a dog, the other can believe them without being absolutely certain. In that scenario, skepticism was not applied yet certainty didn't inherently apply. So even without doubt someone can believe things or everything without certainty. Lets continue assuming there will be a drop of the second clause for this to be true.
  
• True, and is necessary.
  
• There are now two reasons why this is not true:
  
• One - this assumes logical rules, like non-contradiction, is true.
  
• Two - the premises now (after dropping the last clause) does not follow the conclusion.
  
• I do not claim this is a certainty. Rather, it is a reasonable presumption that was used to illustrate: "The claim 'contradiction can exist' cannot be dis-proven."
  

Contradictions: The claim that contradictions can exist is not inherently unprovable. It’s a matter of semantics and depends on how we define “contradiction”. In classical logic, a contradiction (a statement and its negation both being true) is generally considered impossible.

• Ok, why is it not disprovable though? In even in the definition PRO gave, CON's original reasoning still applies. What is essentially being asked is what does the change in definition invalidate the original reasoning in paragraph two?
  

Conception and Experience: The assertion that people can only conceive something after experiencing it is not necessarily true. Humans have the ability to imagine and conceive of things they have never experienced. For instance, most people have never experienced outer space, but they can still conceive of it based on information they’ve learned.

• This is a little vague with what aspect of space is being conceived, let's assume this means what space feels like. These conceptions of space are simulated rather than a true conception of space. For example, let's say there has been a notion that space is hot rather than freezing (and assume it is heavily supported by the scientific community). Would that conception not be wrong? Based on outside information, it can be conceived in so many ways. Conception just cannot happen void of experience.
  
• CON would challenge PRO to explain, if conception does not come from experience, why people cannot conceive of colors outside of the visible spectrum. This seems much more fair since we do have an incredible amount of information about colors and is a more direct example for the relationship between conception and experience.
  

Rational Thought and Contradictions: The existence of contradictions doesn’t nullify rational thought. Even if a contradiction were to exist, it wouldn’t mean that all claims could potentially be contradictory. Each claim would still need to be evaluated on its own merits. 

• Ok, then explain why either this is the case or why the sixth paragraph is incorrect. To summarize the point:
  
• Two propositions that contradict cannot be understood as true.
  
• Hypothetically, a claim may or may not exist in a state of contradiction
  
• Therefore, if contradiction can exist, that means any claim may be contradictory.
  
• There is more of an explanation in the original paragraph.
  

Certainty is Impossible: This is a sweeping claim that makes no sense. How can you be absolutely certain that absolute certainty is impossible?

• CON is not absolutely certain that absolute certainty is impossible. CON believes that absolute certainty is impossible, but not for an absolute certainty. Again, people can believe things without being absolutely certain.
  

The claim “contradiction can exist” cannot be dis-proven.

• Definitions:
  
• Disprove: prove that (something) is false.
  
• Prove: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
  
• False: not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
  
• Possible: able to exist
  
• Possibility: In logic, possibility implies the absence of a contradiction. 
  
• Disproving the claim:
  
• The statement "Contradictions can exist" does not imply an abscence of a contradiction.
  
• So there is no possibility that the statement is correct, making it FALSE.
  
• Contradictions are not merely "impossible" by accident, they literally define that category.
  
• To disprove a statement as false you attempt to demonstrate how the claim contains false information or is illogical.
  
• The statement "Contradictions can exist" violates the law of non-contradiction.
  
• Violating the fundamental principles of logic makes statements ILLOGICAL.
  
• Illogical statements are disproved by default. 
  
• If contradictions can exist, it means they possibly exist, which means they actually exist in a possible world.
  
• Principle_of_explosion: from a contradiction, any proposition (including its negation) can be inferred; this is known as deductive explosion.
  
• From the existence of even a single contradiction we can infer that the moon is made of cheese and that "contradiction can exist" is false.
  
• When your statement can be proven false by it's own implications, that is proof that the statement is ABSURD and FALSE.
  
• So contradictions are thoroughly disproven. It's just that we don't need empirical data to do it. But if you do look at the evidence you won't find a single contradiction.
  

1. We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.

2. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.

3. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part of the statement ("All lemons are yellow") has already been assumed, and the use of "or" means that if even one part of the statement is true, the statement as a whole must be true as well.

4. However, since we also know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true to ensure the two-part statement to be true, i.e., unicorns exist (this inference is known as the Disjunctive syllogism).

5. The procedure may be repeated ad nauseum to prove an infinite number of contradicting claims.

the reasoning laid out has been under the assumption that non-contradiction is true. It just cannot be known for certain.

Really appreciate this line of reasoning, since it is true and something CON has not thought of. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it is based on reasoning. It assumes that contradictions don't exist, and as previously established, the possible existence of contradictions invalidates reasoning itself.

• Firstly, thank you for the feedback. Secondly, I believe this critique applies to your arguments as well:
  
• CON conceedes my point that reasoning cannot be applied to the premise "contradiction may exist" since all arguments rely on said premise being false.
  
• CON also conceeded earlier that his reasoning "has been under the assumption that non-contradiction is true"
  
• So CON is admitting that his case is predicated upon the logical crime of applying reasoning to an illogical premise that defies and undermines logic. 
  

• Because we cannot prove that they are impossible.
  

• Because contradictions maybe existing casts doubt on even airtight arguments.
  

Hidden premise: Contradictions cannot exist.

• This is the law of non-contradiction. It is a hidden premise in all arguments.
  
• Here is an example. 
  
• P1: Trump is a human.
  
• P2: Humans are mammals.
  
• P3: Contradictions cannot exist.
  
• C: Therefore, Trump is a mammal, since if he wasn't that would contradict the true premises
  

Arguments only work because the premises contradict the negation of the conclusion.

What is meant by this is that two proposition that contradict cannot be conceived.

So the statement of "contradiction exists" is still up to question,

The first premise is not necessarily true. Feeling absolutely certainty is different from belief; belief can exist without certainty.

• The only difference between belief and certainty is the scrutiny of skepticism. CON says you can believe statements from others without being certain. That is because we are skeptical and reserve absolute certainty for claims with high enough degrees of evidence supporting them, and preferably with no valid objections.
  
• If someone lacked any semblance of skepticism, they would not require evidence to accept and be absolute certain of all the propositions they heard. 
  

This is also based on reasoning. What makes this true? Rationality. Is rationality for certain? CON's answer is no due to it not being able to be analyzed by skepticism.

• In this possible world, the law of non-contradiction is true and can be proven. 
  
• Therefore absolute certainty is possible here.
  

• In this possible world, the law of non-contradiction is false or unprovable.
  
• Therefore absolute certainty is impossible here (according to CON).
  

• If a proposition is true in even a single possible world, it is possible. 
  
• This conclusion holds true even if Logical world B is the actual world.
  

• Disproving the claim:
  

...

• Contradictions are not merely "impossible" by accident, they literally define that category.
  

• This is not a disproving that contradictions are impossible since it is a just a restatement that it just is; that this is by definition a impossibility therefore it is a impossibility.
  
• First of all, the "definition" of contradiction is merely that a proposition and the negation of that proposition cannot be true at the same time.
  
• And if I really wanted to be more precise, I could just make a term up that solely refers to this concept without the supposed definition of impossibility. Essentially, it being a inherent impossibility is an additional element - not a inherent element - of contradiction, and even if true, doesn't truly attack the actual substance that is trying to be communicated.
  
• Also known as the fallacy of begging the question; an "attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself restates or presupposes the claim."
  

To disprove a statement as false you attempt to demonstrate how the claim contains false information or is illogical.

• The statement "Contradictions can exist" violates the law of non-contradiction.
  
• Violating the fundamental principles of logic makes statements ILLOGICAL.
  
• Illogical statements are disproved by default
  

• I agree to this, however, something being being illogical and untrue are not synonymous. This is true for two reasons:
  
•  It's even implied in your "or" statement (since it can be true information but not logical - thus not truly disproven.)
  
• Assuming you meant via empirical data, even if you use an "and" you would then gain the burden of proof to prove both statements.
  
• CON is happy to assume you only meant "illogical".
  
• Boiling down logic, it is merely something that can only be conceived as true and are things that are used to make a conclusion. Just because something is only understood to be true and are used to make conclusions does not mean that thing is actually true or untrue.
  
• Essentially, the real world and the world we conceive that makes sense are different.
  
• A disagreement here would necessarily mean PRO's opinion is either:
  
• What is true in our head is somehow necessarily true to the external world, and the question is, if there is a technological advancement or difference in cognition overtime that changes what is logical would the external world change due to that?
  
• Alternatively, this would mean that what is logical is already a inherent part of the world, which is in question in the first place; PRO would then need to establish that the world does confirm to logic (which CON posits as impossible).
  

If contradictions can exist, it means they possibly exist, which means they actually exist in a possible world.

• Principle_of_explosion: from a contradiction, any proposition (including its negation) can be inferred; this is known as deductive explosion.
  
• From the existence of even a single contradiction we can infer that the moon is made of cheese and that "contradiction can exist" is false.
  
• When your statement can be proven false by it's own implications, that is proof that the statement is ABSURD and FALSE.
  

• It would be more accurate to say: "From the existence of even a single contradiction we can infer that the 'moon is made of cheese and not of cheese' or that 'contradiction can exist and cannot exist'."
  
• A single contradiction would mean either of these exist in a state of contradiction; not both.
  
• In a state of contradiction no one can say if these are false or true; they're both. It is impossible to say that "contradiction can exist" is false when its in a state of contradiction. Since, in that case, it would be in a state of non-contradiction.
  
• It seems like PRO is trying to argue that the principle of explosion, the idea that a proposition being true can be inferred through it negation being false or true and vice vera, shows that an existence of a single contradiction means that it... CON doesn't know actually (CON has read deductive explosion section in detail).
  

Without non-contradiction, every single proposition and counter proposition would be possibly true at the same time.

MAJOR CONCESSION: 

• CON admits that any proposition, including "absolute certainty can exists", would possibly be true according to his argument
  
• So even after applying his hyper-skepticism, he still must agree that absolute certainty is possible, which is the word the resolution uses.
  

• Nope, again, a contradiction is a proposition being true and false at the same time - or in other words - proposition and counter proposition being true at the same time.
  
• It would be more accurate to say that "I must agree that it is possible that absolute certainty is at the same time possible and not possible."
  
• Which, does not really mean anything to our cognition.
  
• Compared to saying that "I must agree that it is possible that absolute certainty is possible."
  

the reasoning laid out has been under the assumption that non-contradiction is true. It just cannot be known for certain.

• But there have been people that had absolute certainty of their own existence. 
  
• Absolute: not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
  
• Certainty: firm conviction that something is the case.
  
• Skepticism: the disbelief of all claims until sufficient proof is given to believe a claim.
  
• Cogito ergo sum is sufficient proof for your own existence.
  
• Not everyone is perfectly rational. 
  
• Not everyone has heard CON's argument.
  
• So many people have lived their lives with ZERO REASON TO DOUBT the axioms of logic, so they had absolute certainty in their own existence. 
  

...

• So using the consensus meaning of possibility found in philosophy, absolute certainty is definitely possible.
  

• CON disagrees on three fronts (but will say only two since there is not enough room):
  
• This is not an adequate or appropriate response to the quote given.
  
• The key word in the quote is known, and to know is to "maintain (a belief, a position) subject to a given philosophical definition of knowledge; to hold a justified true belief."
  
• Just in case there is a disagreement because "knowledge" is in the given definition - it is a phrase not a word, as in, "definition of knowledge" is a whole phrase on a whole topic. Not a self-referential definition.
  
• Furthermore, in this Wikipedia article of this whole topic: "There is overwhelming agreement that knowledge implies truth."
  
• So, a true disagreement would need to add this premise - however, the addition to this premise would mean someone (under this framing) needs to have a justified true belief, which is what this debate is trying to find out. Making this a not an actual response to the quote.
  
• Certainty, in philosophical terms, is just a higher form of knowledge; "...certainty is either the highest form of knowledge or is the only epistemic property superior to knowledge."
  
• And currently, CON and PRO is discussing this in a philosophical sense - so the response has a more so inappropriate usage of the word.
  
• Certainty also has this definition: "A fact or truth unquestionably established."
  

Hidden premise: Contradictions cannot exist.

...

Sharp readers will notice that P1 in CON's argument already invalidates this hidden premise because he assumes its negation.

...

The major flaw in CON's argument is that from the moment he asserts "contradictions can exist" he has forfeited his reasoning privilege.

CON can assume classical logic to make an argument. Or he can reject classical logic as "unprovable".  But only one at a time. He cannot argue using the absurd premise 1.

• The problem is that "contradictions can exist" is not a negation of "contradictions don't exist." The full proposition is "The claim 'contradiction can exist' cannot be dis-proven," (as of the first sentence in paragraph two, and the rest of R1 argument.) A small detail but a important one. CON wishes to explain more, but CON is running out of room.
  

So the statement of "contradiction exists" is still up to question,

Rejecting the possibility of contradictions is what defines the act of reason.

We have no evidence that contradictions exist, or even a decent explanation of the idea beyond being absurd, so skepticism should compell us to deny the claim.

Entertaining the idea of contradictions undermines all reasoning, including skepticism and any logical arguments against the possibility of absolute certainty.

• Correct.
  
• Misspoke, meant "contradictions can exist." Skepticism is a disbelief of a claim until sufficient proof is given to believe a claim, and the claim "contradictions can exist" cannnot be disproven. Meaning denying or rejecting this claim is antithetical to skepticism.
  
• Correct.
  

The first premise is not necessarily true. Feeling absolutely certainty is different from belief; belief can exist without certainty.

• The only difference between belief and certainty is the scrutiny of skepticism. CON says you can believe statements from others without being certain. That is because we are skeptical and reserve absolute certainty for claims with high enough degrees of evidence supporting them, and preferably with no valid objections.
  

• Skepticism is being skeptical are different things. Skepticism, as defined, is the disbelief of a claim until sufficient proof. The inverse would be to belief of a claim regardless of proof.
  
• The inverse does not take account of certainty.
  
• Certainty is just a form of knowledge (as mentioned). So it would be like conflating belief with knowledge.
  

Given these possible worlds, absolute certainty is possible, period. 

• The problem is that we don't know which world we are in.
  

the "definition" of contradiction is merely that a proposition and the negation of that proposition cannot be true at the same time.

Nope, again, a contradiction is a proposition being true and false at the same time - or in other words - proposition and counter proposition being true at the same time.

Misspoke, meant "contradictions can exist."

Given these possible worlds, absolute certainty is possible, period. 

• The problem is that we don't know which world we are in.
  

Hidden premise: Contradictions cannot exist.

...

Sharp readers will notice that P1 in CON's argument already invalidates this hidden premise because he assumes its negation.

...

The major flaw in CON's argument is that from the moment he asserts "contradictions can exist" he has forfeited his reasoning privilege.

CON can assume classical logic to make an argument. Or he can reject classical logic as "unprovable".  But only one at a time. He cannot argue using the absurd premise 1.

• The actual full proposition is "The claim 'contradiction can exist' cannot be dis-proven," not "contradictions can exist." Although these are somewhat interchangeable, since what is not disproven or proven the negation is then concluded as possible, these does not directly claim that contradiction can exist.
  
• So logic is still able to be used within the stated reasoning in R1.
  

So the statement of "contradiction exists" is still up to question,

Rejecting the possibility of contradictions is what defines the act of reason.

We have no evidence that contradictions exist, or even a decent explanation of the idea beyond being absurd, so skepticism should compell us to deny the claim.

Entertaining the idea of contradictions undermines all reasoning, including skepticism and any logical arguments against the possibility of absolute certainty.

• Correct. Though, to labor on this, the full proposition given was a indirect support of the possibility of contradiction.
  
• Skepticism is a disbelief of a claim until sufficient proof is given to believe a claim, and the claim "contradictions can exist" cannnot be disproven. Meaning denying or rejecting this claim is antithetical to skepticism.
  
• Saying something cannot exist (denying or rejecting) is not skepticism of not concretely proven false.
  
• For example, let say there there is no prove for the claim "God exists". Skepticism then, if followed, someone cannot believe God exists. However, to say then God does not exist (i.e deny, reject) is also fallacious since there is no prove for that claim. The belief and the claim are different things.
  
• Now, and this is the "why" of skepticism. The reason why Descartes doubted all of his beliefs, fundamental ones anyway, is because these beliefs have the possibility of being wrong. So, the default disbelief of all claims is in response to that possibility.
  
• Now notice that the statement "contradiction can exists" (or in other words, "contradictions exist is up to question") is essentially a disbelief of the claim "contradictions do exist" and "contradictions don't exist". Since that is what skepticism is.
  
• This seems to repeat of the first bullet point.
  

This is also based on reasoning. What makes this true? Rationality. Is rationality for certain? CON's answer is no due to it not being able to be analyzed by skepticism.

CON's argument hinges on us not knowing whether the law of non-contradiction is valid or invalid. We can then imagine two possible worlds.

Logical world A:

• In this possible world, the law of non-contradiction is true and can be proven. 
  
• Therefore absolute certainty is possible here.
  

Logical world B: 

• In this possible world, the law of non-contradiction is false or unprovable.
  
• Therefore absolute certainty is impossible here (according to CON).
  

• This does not seem to actually be a response to the quote given. However, the question is what was the process in which these possible worlds were given? Because there are multiple logical world that may be possible.
  
• Logical world C:
  
• The law of non-contradiction is true but unprovable. (which is what CON's world is actually)
  
• Also, there is a "therefore" at the end of the world. Which, is not substantially given reason to believe.
  

• Finally, a proposition may be true but the problem is if that proposition can be known for a certainty to be true. For example, the proposition "Descartes sees a pencil" may be true. The problem is that it cannot be known for a certainty that pencil is seen, for the same reason why Descartes discards senses.
  
• Something being true and knowing for a certainty that thing is true are different thing, and the latter is what is up to debate in the first place.
  

I am going to make the simplest possible argument for my case, which would be true even if world B is the actual world and we ignore all the possible worlds:

P1: We cannot be absolutely certaint that contradictions don't exist.

P2: Absolute certainty can exist.

In order to deny the possibility of the second premise, CON must make a logical argument, which he cannot make without rejecting the first premise.

Disproving the claim:

• The statement "Contradictions can exist" does not imply an abscence of a contradiction.
  
• So there is no possibility that the statement is correct, making it FALSE.
  
• Contradictions are not merely "impossible" by accident, they literally define that category.
  

....

But again, all the academics and philosophers agree that contradictions DEFINE the category of impossibility. Contradictions are impossible by definition, no proof required.

• The statement "Contradictions can exist" doesn't necessarily imply the absence or existence of contradiction. In the same way a person "can" punch another person, but doesn't necessarily imply the absence or existence of the punch. Either or. It just means that there is a possibility of the punch's existence, or the possibility of the punch's absence.
  
• Honestly, there is such a lack of information on if contradictions are categorically impossible. But from what CON is able find, this is a unsubstantiated claim that all academics and philosophers think this way:
  
• Aristotle states that the law of non-contradiction (LNC) is a unjustifiable but "obvious" principle.(1)
  
• Which implies the idea that contradictions are not literally define what is impossible, but rather, something assumed to be true because it is obvious.
  
• Which is complemented by the this "new philosophy essays" published by the Oxford Press which discusses LNC as something that can be possible, not something by definitions as impossible. (2)
  
• They even randomly get 19 quotes from logical and philosophical literature that defines contradiction. None of which say that contradictions in of itself, by definition, impossible. (Pages 51-52)
  
• The author even agrees with the statement that some contradictions are acceptable.
  
• Also, there is so much literature that describes the scenarios where contradictions may even be true.(3)
  
• Finally, CON didn't even have the burden of proof to prove that this idea does exist in academic philosophy; PRO had the burden of proof.
  

I don't think CON has made an adequate response to this except for a nonsense claim. You cannot demand "proof" for the fundamental laws of logic, because before you accept these laws the concept of proof carries no meaning whatsoever. You either accept the axioms of logic, and use reason to become absolutely certain of tautologies, or you reject them along with reason itself, and accept that literally anything is possible no matter how nonsensical. There is no middle ground. You cannot deny the impossibility of contradictions while simultaniously uphold the validty of logical arguments. To base your argument on the premise that logic itself lacks proven validty is akin to killing someone and then ask the corpse questions.

• "The claim 'God can exist' cannot be disproven" and "God cannot exist". These propositions do not contradict, yes? Since saying something is able to be disprovable or provable is different than stating that something does or does not exist. The former only comments on it's falsifiability and degree of how reasonable it is to believe the claim within the proposition. Because of skepticism. The latter comments on God itself.
  
• This is directly analogous to what CON is saying. "The claim 'Contradictions can exist' cannot be disproven" and "Contradictions cannot exist". The exact same logic, the only difference being that "contradiction" is replaced with "God". So, no, CON is not claiming that contradictions can exist, the claim is that contradictions cannot be disproven.
  
• Just because there is a demand of proof of a claim does not mean that claim is not believed. An atheist can believe that God does not exist but can still ask for evidence of that claim. This is just a basic belief - justification distinction.
  

Plus, CON has not refuted that the only world where anything at all can be truly impossible, is one where logic is absolute: where something being false precludes it from being true.

Logical world A:

• In this possible world, the law of non-contradiction is true and can be proven. 
  
• Therefore absolute certainty is possible here.
  

• One, CON does not have the burden of prove here. PRO has the burden of proof here.
  
• Two, to prove that contradictions are not possible there would need to be no examples of contradictions existing. Since, that is what the LNC means.
  
• However, then, there would need to be a complete search of the universe to make sure there are no examples of contradictions. And as PRO agreed:
  

We cannot know everything in existence.

• I agree with CON that this is something we can be absolutely certain of. 
  

The claim “contradiction can exist” cannot be dis-proven. We cannot know everything in existence. Everything could possibly include a contradiction. Knowing means knowledge of a claim being necessarily true or false. Imagine a house (existence) with two people, one person claims there is no rock (contradiction) in a locked room (everything unknown). The two people do not know if a rock is in that room, since they do not have proof of a rock being necessarily there or not. The fact that we have only experienced non-contradiction does not necessarily mean that contradiction cannot exist. It is as if saying a rock must necessarily exist in that room since you have only seen rock in the entire house - it is not knowing since it isn’t necessarily true. Everything in the house can be rock but that locked room doesn’t necessarily have a rock in it. If not, then either we can know everything in the universe (which is humanly impossible,) contradiction is not a thing that could possibly exist (which excludes it from skepticism), or-and knowing is not knowledge of a claim being necessarily true or false (which doesn’t attack the actual idea). Explaining the exclusion from skepticism, the idea of skepticism comes from the assumed disbelief of a claim; the idea that a claim is assumed as something that may or may not be true - to not think that contradiction could possibly (may or may not) exist excludes it from the analysis from skepticism. And so, no one can say “contradictions don’t exist” from the deduction of skepticism.