Law of Excluded Middle: Christian Beliefs

I was expecting you to show me where the reasoning I formulated goes wrong, but you do not do so. The analogy you draw, I am afraid, does not quite do the job you want it to.

1. One can easily hold the following two beliefs (your example) without any fear of contradiction:

(a) There is only one way to Bombay (this is it) and (b) There are many ways to Bombay (this is one of them).

The ‘how’ of it must be obvious: the ‘this’ is an indexical. Consequently, any person can hold both these beliefs together (at the same time or about the same route) without being contradictory (depending upon what he points out using the word ‘this’).

In fact, even statements like (c) “Route 19 is the only way to Bombay” and (d) “Route 24 is one of the ways to Bombay” can be held to be true by one and the same person at the same time without fear of contradiction. ( Both  statements would be true if Route 24 allows one to join Route 19 at some point or the other.) In other words, Minimus, your examples do not work the way you want them to.

2. Regarding my reasoning, this is what you say:

Hindus may have ideas/opinions about the beliefs of the Christians but “beliefs about” cannot be compared to “beliefs” and I think that is the error.

You might think that it is an error, but I need more than a mere statement to that effect to be convinced of the correctness of your diagnosis.

Why cannot “beliefs about” be compared to “beliefs”? It cannot have anything to do with the act of comparing itself: one can compare any thing to anything else. It cannot have anything to do with the objects of comparison: after all, both things are beliefs. It cannot have anything to do with the fact that the objects of these beliefs are different: two different beliefs are different from each other because the objects of beliefs are different in some way or another. (If they are not, it would be the same belief.) So, why is the comparison an “error”?

Even if it is an “error”, Minimus, it is not contradictory and that is what we were talking about. You said that you had not come across any argument that does not transform one of the alternatives into a false one. I provided you with a species (there are any number of variants, I chose the simplest) of argument that did not transform the alternative into a false religion.