It almost sounds like you don’t read my posts.
I quote again from post #63:
Firstly, you don’t understand what act and potency mean. See here:
(
newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm)
How can “Pure Act” have a son? How can…
This frantic scrambling around to different questions is off topic. It appears that having your errors exposed, you simply drop the subject, without acknowledging that you are/were mistaken. You then start spewing out new objections. What you need, my friend, is more thinking and less talking [writing].
If you are going to discuss essences and Prime Movers then it is not off topic.
My understanding of off topic is that something is not important to answering the OP’s question. Since he obviously thinks that God exists, he is not asking about your inconsistent metaphysics. He’s asking about the Incarnation. I brought up Aristotle, to refresh your memory
again, not because I thought Aristotle was Christian, but because he held that God is immutable and that God is the Uncaused Cause. Rather than facing up to the fact that this is consistent, you bring out straw man arguments claiming I said Aristotle is Christian. This is pathetic.
You also claim that Aristotle is wrong. This is fine, but I meant it to be a short side note that supported my other claims about the topic/rebutted your claim about the Red Sea. If you want to change the topic of the thread to a discussion of God as Pure Act and as Unmoved Mover, I’m fine with that; however, it seems like a better idea for you to present your “number of excellent arguments” on their own thread.
… One thing cannot both change and not change.
Again, since you seem to forget post 55:
Rossum, this is bogus. First, the usual statement of the principle of non-contradiction is that A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. You forgot that last part.
Now you are forgetting even more of it.
And my point is that Aristotle’s God is not the Christian God…
More** straw man fallacies**. No one said that Aristotle’s conception of God is the Christian conception of God. Nor that what is said of one is necessarily true of the other. I said that Aristotle taught that God is immutable and that God is the Uncaused Cause. I did not say “as is the Christian conception of God.” My point was (and is) that you looked (and look) foolish saying that if God is immutable then He cannot Cause anything. Fortunately, you seem to be leaving the
straw man fallacy in favor of actual arguments. I hope this continues.
As regards your quote from James Garfield, as Dilbert would say: “I’m pretty sure that doesn’t mean anything.” However, I’m loath to turn this into a thread about Nominalism. If you start a thread on that topic in the philosophy forum, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.
Is Jesus(D) outside time? …
I don’t really like phrasing things like that. You must understand that our language is limited in it’s ability to describe God. I would like to say something like: “The Divine Essence is eternal.” “Jesus’ human nature changed.”
Then you are at a disadvantage…
It’s unclear whether you mean I am at a disadvantage as compared to what I would be at if I had read Nagarjuna. I’ll accept that. If you mean I am at a disadvantage compared to you, I claim that your lack of training in logic is a much worse problem than a lack of familiarity with Nagarjuna. If you want, I think it would help you if you tried studying logic, at least at a very basic level. A free online book that I have heard good things about is here:
tellerprimer.ucdavis.edu/pdf/ .
QUOTE:Change is difference. Start with a compound entity: {A, B} composed of two parts. Now change one part, but not the other: {A, B} → {A, B’}. B has changed to B’ while A has remained unchanged. Is it correct to write {A, B} = {A, B’}? If and only if B = B’ can we say they are equal. However, if B = B’ then there has been no change, which gives a contradiction. If B =/= B’ then {A, B} =/= {A, B’}
It doesn’t look like you know how to do proofs in symbollic logic. Perhaps you would have better luck doing it more informally? There are too many errors to list them all, but to start with:
“Change is difference.” That’s a new and very weird definition. Informally, I’d say it is “becoming different”.
You need to explain what A and B are. Let’s say we’re using a first order system. Do you mean that they are formulas? Variables? Predicate symbols?
An example of an error:
**Let’s say that A = B != EMPTY_SET. Then {A, B} is isomorphic to {A}. Now, let B’ = EMPTY_SET. B’ != B. Yet {A, B’} = {A, B}. **(I use != to represent NOT_EQUAL)
There are
many more issues, depending on the above, but as I said, there are too many to expect me to list them all. As a tip, remember that your argument has to exclude my counter example from post 67.
I’m actually inclined to
agree with you as regards physical entities, but
I don’t like just accepting things without proof. In this light, I recommend that you avoid sets and mathematics and perhaps try an informal argument about physical entities. You don’t seem to be well acquainted with mathematical proofs and you would, as I said above, need to develop an argument that excludes my counter example (and the infinitely many other obvious ones. Uncountably infinite to be more exact
.)
The thrust of my argument is that the unchanging is incapable of causing any temporary effects.
That’s kind of like calling air the meat of swiss cheese. I don’t want “many excellent arguments.” I want one *
sound *argument (of course more is fine if you have extra time). I’ll be waiting.
