Necessity of boundary

[Bahman]

Consider two beings, A and B, with very specific functioning Fa and Fb and properties Pa and Pb. Two beings are called mutually exclusive, cannot interact with each other, if there exist not a single property that they share in common, otherwise they share a single property meaning that they could interact with each other hence they are not completely mutually exclusive. Two mutually exclusive beings can however interact with each other if there exist a being between so called boundary, C, which is neither and at least share one property from each being.

Implication:

1. Assume that boundary ontologically exist: two beings can coexist
2. Assume that boundary does not ontologically exist: two being cannot coexist

Application:

Consider Thomas’s second, third and forth proofs. Lets apply this argument to the forth proof. The application of this argument is already discussed on other threads.

Application to the forth proof: There exist perfection (God) and imperfection (Creation/Universe). There exist not a boundary which is neither perfect nor imperfect. From (1) we can deduce that God does not exist since Universe exist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Consider two beings, A and B, with very specific functioning Fa and Fb and properties Pa and Pb.

You have not defined functions ’ Fa ’ and ’ Fb ’ and you have not defined properties ’ Pa and Pb.

Two beings are called mutually exclusive, cannot interact with each other, if there exist not a single property that they share in common,

Who says they cannot interact? Explain why they cannot interact.

otherwise they share a single property meaning that they could interact with each other hence they are not completely mutually exclusive.

I don’t see why they can’t interact with or without common properties.

And what do you mean by mutually exclusive?

Two mutually exclusive beings can however interact with each other if there exist a being between so called boundary, C, which is neither and at least share one property from each being.

’ C ’ is not a boundary, it is more like a catalyst…

Implication:

[1) Assume that boundary ontologically exist: two beings can coexist
2) Assume that boundary does not ontologically exist: two being cannot coexist

And why should we assume these conditions? If you cannot prove they are logically necessary, there is no reason to admit them.

Application:

Consider Thomas’s second, third and forth proofs. Lets apply this argument to the forth proof. The application of this argument is already discussed on other threads.

We already have. And your argument faile there.

Application to the forth proof: There exist perfection (God) and imperfection (Creation/Universe).

So you are agreeing that creatures share some perfections with God, only they are less perfect. Seems to me you are saying that they share some property and therefore they can interact.

There exist not a boundary which is neither perfect nor imperfect.

Whahoo there. You haven’t proven there even needs to be a boundary.

From (1) we can deduce that God does not exist since Universe exist.

But you just said in ’ 1, ’ that if there exisited an ontological boundary, they could coexist. And now you jump from that to " we can deduce that God does not exist since the Universe exist (s ).

I can’t name all the logical errors here but there at least half a dozen. Further more the whole ediface is based on unproven assumptions. Finally, the universe and God possess many common properties and many common perfections. For example, the universe exists and God exists, only God exists more perfectly than the universe. He is existence and the universe only **has ** existence, and it has existence from God. Where else would it get its existence? It certainly didn’t cause its own existence. It certainly didn’t jump out of a bottle like a magic genie.

You need to go back to your advisors and come up with a new argument.
This should be fun.

Linus2nd
[/quote]

 

[TheSecondMile]

Consider two beings, A and B, with very specific functioning Fa and Fb and properties Pa and Pb. Two beings are called mutually exclusive, cannot interact with each other, if there exist not a single property that they share in common, otherwise they share a single property meaning that they could interact with each other hence they are not completely mutually exclusive. Two mutually exclusive beings can however interact with each other if there exist a being between so called boundary, C, which is neither and at least share one property from each being.

Implication:

1. Assume that boundary ontologically exist: two beings can coexist
2. Assume that boundary does not ontologically exist: two being cannot coexist

Application:

Consider Thomas’s second, third and forth proofs. Lets apply this argument to the forth proof. The application of this argument is already discussed on other threads.

Application to the forth proof: There exist perfection (God) and imperfection (Creation/Universe). There exist not a boundary which is neither perfect nor imperfect. From (1) we can deduce that God does not exist since Universe exist.

Your use of the term mutually exclusive is confusing so it is difficult to follow what you are saying.

Your claim seems to be that two things which contain mutually exclusive properties cannot interact without some sort of boundary which contains neither property, which is just nonsense. A thing which is hot can interact with something which is not and there need not be any “boundary” which is neither hot nor not hot.

 

[Bahman]

You have not defined functions ’ Fa ’ and ’ Fb ’ and you have not defined properties ’ Pa and Pb.

Consider A as God and B as creation. Then, Fa could be creation for example and Fb any changes within creation such as reproduction in human being. Pa could omnipotence, love, etc. Pb could be, any property withing creation like, time, etc.

Who says they cannot interact? Explain why they cannot interact.

That is my definition.

I don’t see why they can’t interact with or without common properties.

They can interact if they have common properties otherwise they cannot.

And what do you mean by mutually exclusive?

When they have no common property.

’ C ’ is not a boundary, it is more like a catalyst…

I call it boundary since I don’t know a better technical word.

And why should we assume these conditions? If you cannot prove they are logically necessary, there is no reason to admit them.

I can deduce them. Hence you can. Let me know if you need further explanation and I will elaborate with pleasure.

We already have. And your argument faile there.

The only missing part is the necessity for existence of boundary.

So you are agreeing that creatures share some perfections with God, only they are less perfect. Seems to me you are saying that they share some property and therefore they can interact.

It depends how do you define a property. If perfection is lack of defect then we are imperfect hence there exist not a boundary which means that we have judge based on (1) and (2)

Whahoo there. You haven’t proven there even needs to be a boundary.

So we should be happy by now.

But you just said in ’ 1, ’ that if there exisited an ontological boundary, they could coexist. And now you jump from that to " we can deduce that God does not exist since the Universe exist (s ).

Well, if you define God as perfect and us as imperfect then there exist not a boundary which cannot be imperfect and perfect.

I can’t name all the logical errors here but there at least half a dozen. Further more the whole ediface is based on unproven assumptions. Finally, the universe and God possess many common properties and many common perfections. For example, the universe exists and God exists, only God exists more perfectly than the universe. He is existence and the universe only **has ** existence, and it has existence from God. Where else would it get its existence? It certainly didn’t cause its own existence. It certainly didn’t jump out of a bottle like a magic genie.

God is either more perfect than us or it is absolutely perfect. What is your answer? :tsktsk:

You need to go back to your advisors and come up with a new argument.
This should be fun.

My masters are saying yes! You cannot imagine who they are! :extrahappy:

 

[Bahman]

Your use of the term mutually exclusive is confusing so it is difficult to follow what you are saying.

Your claim seems to be that two things which contain mutually exclusive properties cannot interact without some sort of boundary which contains neither property, which is just nonsense. A thing which is hot can interact with something which is not and there need not be any “boundary” which is neither hot nor not hot.

…boundary which is neither and contains one common property from each…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Consider A as God and B as creation. Then, Fa could be creation for example and Fb any changes within creation such as reproduction in human being. Pa could omnipotence, love, etc. Pb could be, any property withing creation like, time, etc.

That is my definition.

They can interact if they have common properties otherwise they cannot.

When they have no common property.

I call it boundary since I don’t know a better technical word.

I can deduce them. Hence you can. Let me know if you need further explanation and I will elaborate with pleasure.

The only missing part is the necessity for existence of boundary.

It depends how do you define a property. If perfection is lack of defect then we are imperfect hence there exist not a boundary which means that we have judge based on (1) and (2)

So we should be happy by now.

Well, if you define God as perfect and us as imperfect then there exist not a boundary which cannot be imperfect and perfect.

God is either more perfect than us or it is absolutely perfect. What is your answer? :tsktsk:

My masters are saying yes! You cannot imagine who they are! :extrahappy:

Sorry, none of this can be applied to any argument concerning the existence of God. The who scenario is unintelligible, it means nothing and leads no where. It certainly has nothing to do with any of Saint Thomas’ proofs

Your masters? I better not say who they are.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Sorry, none of this can be applied to any argument concerning the existence of God. The who scenario is unintelligible, it means nothing and leads no where. It certainly has nothing to do with any of Saint Thomas’ proofs

Your masters? I better not say who they are.

Linus2nd

Did you give up? I can explain everything for you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Did you give up? I can explain everything for you.

What you have said so far makes no sense, so unless you can say something sensible there is no use trying again. I have asked you before, but just out of curiosity where do you get your ideas?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

What you have said so far makes no sense, so unless you can say something sensible there is no use trying again.

It makes sense to me. Let me tell you the story in simple manner. You have two things, God and creation for example. Your definition of God and creation has to be consistent with each other otherwise you cannot fuse two concept together. The concept of perfect God (absolutely perfect) just does not fuse with the concept of imperfect creation. It is like you have a line where universe sits somewhere reasonable, limited, and then you send God to infinity. There is a huge gap between which show itself as an anomaly and you cannot have a consistent picture no matte how hard you try. This is how I see the problem. There is always a hole in our reasoning, so I just have to depend on myself and give it a try. Of course you don’t get any thing new if you are 100% about what you know.

Now back to story. Imperfect creation is mutually exclusive from absolutely perfect God. Hence there is something needed between, so called boundary, to fill the gap and allows the interaction. Yet, your definition of God and creation must be such that to allow the existence of a boundary, we have no chance to get a consistent picture if it is boundary is logically impossible. If boundary is gone you have to deal with following scenarios: either your definition of God is wrong, God is not objectively perceivable or God does not exist because we are very sure that universe exist. For example I can simple deduce that God does not exist if I define God as a being which interacts with creation and is perfect. God could exist if it is not interacting with creation but it cannot exist objectively so forget about meeting God.

I have asked you before, but just out of curiosity where do you get your ideas?

Linus2nd

Thinking alone and discussing in the forum. Thanks for your contribution. Harder you hit me better I become.

 

[blase6]

It makes sense to me. Let me tell you the story in simple manner. You have two things, God and creation for example. Your definition of God and creation has to be consistent with each other otherwise you cannot fuse two concept together. The concept of perfect God (absolutely perfect) just does not fuse with the concept of imperfect creation. It is like you have a line where universe sits somewhere reasonable, limited, and then you send God to infinity. There is a huge gap between which show itself as an anomaly and you cannot have a consistent picture no matte how hard you try. This is how I see the problem. There is always a hole in our reasoning, so I just have to depend on myself and give it a try. Of course you don’t get any thing new if you are 100% about what you know.

Now back to story. Imperfect creation is mutually exclusive from absolutely perfect God. Hence there is something needed between, so called boundary, to fill the gap and allows the interaction. Yet, your definition of God and creation must be such that to allow the existence of a boundary, we have no chance to get a consistent picture if it is boundary is logically impossible. If boundary is gone you have to deal with following scenarios: either your definition of God is wrong, God is not objectively perceivable or God does not exist because we are very sure that universe exist. For example I can simple deduce that God does not exist if I define God as a being which interacts with creation and is perfect. God could exist if it is not interacting with creation but it cannot exist objectively so forget about meeting God.

What do you think “perfection” means? Bahman, for you, it would be best to define your terms first, and then carefully stick to your definitions. Nobody has a good idea of what you mean otherwise.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It makes sense to me. …snip…]

As I said, your argument makes no sense to me or to anyone else around here. I don’t plan on going into it all again, I have answered you many times.

If you read the Bible and the Catechism ( and I don’t believe for a minute you did either ) you will see that there is no barrier between man and God. You will also see Jesus Christ did things everyday that only God can do.

Linus2nd

 

[TheSecondMile]

It makes sense to me. Let me tell you the story in simple manner. You have two things, God and creation for example. Your definition of God and creation has to be consistent with each other otherwise you cannot fuse two concept together. The concept of perfect God (absolutely perfect) just does not fuse with the concept of imperfect creation. It is like you have a line where universe sits somewhere reasonable, limited, and then you send God to infinity. There is a huge gap between which show itself as an anomaly and you cannot have a consistent picture no matte how hard you try. This is how I see the problem. There is always a hole in our reasoning, so I just have to depend on myself and give it a try. Of course you don’t get any thing new if you are 100% about what you know.

Now back to story. Imperfect creation is mutually exclusive from absolutely perfect God. Hence there is something needed between, so called boundary, to fill the gap and allows the interaction. Yet, your definition of God and creation must be such that to allow the existence of a boundary, we have no chance to get a consistent picture if it is boundary is logically impossible. If boundary is gone you have to deal with following scenarios: either your definition of God is wrong, God is not objectively perceivable or God does not exist because we are very sure that universe exist. For example I can simple deduce that God does not exist if I define God as a being which interacts with creation and is perfect. God could exist if it is not interacting with creation but it cannot exist objectively so forget about meeting God.

It seems to me like imperfection is part of the essence of creation. Nothing which is created can be perfect.

There is no need for a boundary. Things with mutually exclusive properties interact all the time and there is no “boundary” which contains neither property.

 

[Bahman]

It seems to me like imperfection is part of the essence of creation. Nothing which is created can be perfect.

There is no need for a boundary. Things with mutually exclusive properties interact all the time and there is no “boundary” which contains neither property.

How two mutually exclusive thing could interact with each other? Perfect Love versus love or even hate, Perfect Knowledge versus corrupted knowledge or even ignorance, etc. There is nothing in common to allow interaction.

 

[Rhubarb]

Consider two beings, A and B, with very specific functioning Fa and Fb and properties Pa and Pb. Two beings are called mutually exclusive, cannot interact with each other, if there exist not a single property that they share in common, otherwise they share a single property meaning that they could interact with each other hence they are not completely mutually exclusive. Two mutually exclusive beings can however interact with each other if there exist a being between so called boundary, C, which is neither and at least share one property from each being.

Implication:

1. Assume that boundary ontologically exist: two beings can coexist
2. Assume that boundary does not ontologically exist: two being cannot coexist

Application:

Consider Thomas’s second, third and forth proofs. Lets apply this argument to the forth proof. The application of this argument is already discussed on other threads.

Application to the forth proof: There exist perfection (God) and imperfection (Creation/Universe). There exist not a boundary which is neither perfect nor imperfect. From (1) we can deduce that God does not exist since Universe exist.

What do you mean by a property shared in common? Consider that all objects seem to be self-identical. The extension of the set of all things identical with itself is the set of all objects. Self-identity is then a property that all objects share in common.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

An observation. Half of the worlds population believes in the God of the Bible. And the Bible clearly shows that there is no barrier between the universe, including man, and God. The other half of the world doesn’t believe in the Bible but, given a choice, the indication is they freely accept the Bible and/or the teachings of Christianity. This of course is not a philosophical proof of anything but it does show what people think. For example, we don’t see any advance in Eastern cult religions such as Buddhism.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

What do you think “perfection” means? Bahman, for you, it would be best to define your terms first, and then carefully stick to your definitions. Nobody has a good idea of what you mean otherwise.

Perfection in the way that Christian believe means the lack of defect and full fulfillment.

 

[Bahman]

What do you mean by a property shared in common? Consider that all objects seem to be self-identical. The extension of the set of all things identical with itself is the set of all objects. Self-identity is then a property that all objects share in common.

What you are defining is the essence. Consider two persons for example that they speak different languages, language being a property here. These two persons are mutually exclusive if the language is the only thing they can have in common. Simply they cannot affect each other. They could however interact with each other if there exist an translator in which s/he knows both languages.

The same rules applies to the perfection and imperfection with the difference that there exist not any boundary between perfection and imperfection which is neither perfect nor imperfect. This is logically impossible and, perfection and imperfection are mutually exclusive hence the rest of argument follows, meaning that perfection does not exist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What do you mean by a property shared in common? Consider that all objects seem to be self-identical. The extension of the set of all things identical with itself is the set of all objects. Self-identity is then a property that all objects share in common.

He is thinking of something actually attached to each, like blood or nerves, or mind that serves as a transition point betwee God and us. Sort of like a bridge between two, otherwise impassible, land masses. Of course there is no bridge between man and God.
But we know that that doesn’t keep God and ourselves from communicating. We share many properties with God by way of analogy. The principle of these is existence and mind. But it is through mind that we communicate to God and by which he communicates with us.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

He is thinking of something actually attached to each, like blood or nerves, or mind that serves as a transition point betwee God and us. Sort of like a bridge between two, otherwise impassible, land masses. Of course there is no bridge between man and God.
But we know that that doesn’t keep God and ourselves from communicating. We share many properties with God by way of analogy. The principle of these is existence and mind. But it is through mind that we communicate to God and by which he communicates with us.

Linus2nd

Your answer is that we don’t know when I ask you how God create the universe. You believe in revelation, but you deny that a boundary exist. You deny that there exist a gap between us and God and in the same time accepting it!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Your answer is that we don’t know when I ask you how God create the universe. You believe in revelation, but you deny that a boundary exist. You deny that there exist a gap between us and God and in the same time accepting it!

Those obstacles exist only in your imagination. Of course there is a gap between the universe and men which are created by God and God who creates them. But that does not mean their is a barrier between us and him. And Revelation clearly shows that there is no barrier.

Linus2nd