Atheist Pat Mefford asked a strange question in the context of a discussion about the impossibility of the contrary. I would love to try and answer it. However, Pat is a smart guy, and I need him to dumb it down for me.
What if I insisted on a multi-value logic? Such as Kleene’s 3-valued logic that has a third value that is an intermediate between true and false?
Is Pat claiming A v ~A is false? Or that it is undefined? I’m not sure. Comments are welcome.