I
- Status
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
…continued.
Pro let me ask you a few questions to get this back on track.
It seems to me that when you provided these statements, you did not include any information ‘in between’ your statements, the necessary connectives which are necessary to contrast these statements further.
In addition to this, you seemed to be blending your own arguments against the Trinity in this thread-- and the arguments you are presenting in this sense do very much verge into the region of sound reasoning and not formal logic.
Now I have to admit that it’s been a while and I am a bit rusty. But I do understand that formal logic is still the study of inference with purely formal content-- where that content is made explicit.
So, to be fair, it seems to me that anyone who is asked within formal logic to present statements to be examined further should understand that they need to also include the 'either’s, 'if’s, 'and’s, 'but’s, 'or’s and other “conjuctions” in between the statements. In fact, this really is necessary to contrast the the statements with each other like I’ve been saying.
So, for example, I might make an extremely simple statement…
Mr. Ex Nihilo understands formal logic ‘but’ pro_universal does not include connectives between his statements.
Then I would present the additional information in order to further elaborate on an equivalent or negative mathimatical formula between them, right?
For the record, it seems to me that you have still left out these things when you gave your ‘list’. Either that, or your list was so overly simplified that I honestly did not actually recognize what you were presenting and mistook it for conditions of sound reasoning.
So, for example, when you gave this list…
At the very least, I was hoping for something like this…
But you didn’t actually do this.
This is partially why I mistook your presentation for sound reasoning and abstracted them against each other in order to display their contradictions.
This is also why, within the sense of truly formal logic, I stressed many times that the only reason why you were not allowing these statements to contradict each other was precisely because you simply refused to allow each statement to be contrasted to each other.
And even saying that, I was extremely surprised when you actually did give a contradiction within the very first part when you said, “God is all-powerful and all-knowing.”
Anyway, I do understand what you’re getting at. But I am growing increasingly frustrated with the information which you have provided for our further examination.
Since you haven’t really added anything upon further request, and since you honestly seem to think it’s your right to arrogantly dismiss anything I’ve asked you for without any clear explantion as to why you can dismiss my questions without actually answering them, I am truly suspecting that this whole venture may truly have been a waste of time.
I think I’ve really gone above and beyond what most people would put up with here, essentially putting up with a lot of your innuendo in my attempts to understand your position better.
But I’m willing to give this another chance provided you actually present a complete set of statements which summarize your beliefs.
Do you want to present a complete set of statements, including connectives, so that I can actually attempt to construct a mathemtical formula which indicates either a positive or negative from them?
If so, I’ll be willing to give it a shot.
If not, then please don’t even bother responding to this post.
Anything less is truly a waste of my time and yours.
Pro let me ask you a few questions to get this back on track.
It seems to me that when you provided these statements, you did not include any information ‘in between’ your statements, the necessary connectives which are necessary to contrast these statements further.
In addition to this, you seemed to be blending your own arguments against the Trinity in this thread-- and the arguments you are presenting in this sense do very much verge into the region of sound reasoning and not formal logic.
Now I have to admit that it’s been a while and I am a bit rusty. But I do understand that formal logic is still the study of inference with purely formal content-- where that content is made explicit.
So, to be fair, it seems to me that anyone who is asked within formal logic to present statements to be examined further should understand that they need to also include the 'either’s, 'if’s, 'and’s, 'but’s, 'or’s and other “conjuctions” in between the statements. In fact, this really is necessary to contrast the the statements with each other like I’ve been saying.
So, for example, I might make an extremely simple statement…
Mr. Ex Nihilo understands formal logic ‘but’ pro_universal does not include connectives between his statements.
Then I would present the additional information in order to further elaborate on an equivalent or negative mathimatical formula between them, right?
For the record, it seems to me that you have still left out these things when you gave your ‘list’. Either that, or your list was so overly simplified that I honestly did not actually recognize what you were presenting and mistook it for conditions of sound reasoning.
So, for example, when you gave this list…
…I was expecting something a bit more substantial like the translation on this page.
At the very least, I was hoping for something like this…
…in order to more carefully distinguish between the two supposedly equivalent statements.
But you didn’t actually do this.
This is partially why I mistook your presentation for sound reasoning and abstracted them against each other in order to display their contradictions.
This is also why, within the sense of truly formal logic, I stressed many times that the only reason why you were not allowing these statements to contradict each other was precisely because you simply refused to allow each statement to be contrasted to each other.
And even saying that, I was extremely surprised when you actually did give a contradiction within the very first part when you said, “God is all-powerful and all-knowing.”
Anyway, I do understand what you’re getting at. But I am growing increasingly frustrated with the information which you have provided for our further examination.
Since you haven’t really added anything upon further request, and since you honestly seem to think it’s your right to arrogantly dismiss anything I’ve asked you for without any clear explantion as to why you can dismiss my questions without actually answering them, I am truly suspecting that this whole venture may truly have been a waste of time.
I think I’ve really gone above and beyond what most people would put up with here, essentially putting up with a lot of your innuendo in my attempts to understand your position better.
But I’m willing to give this another chance provided you actually present a complete set of statements which summarize your beliefs.
Do you want to present a complete set of statements, including connectives, so that I can actually attempt to construct a mathemtical formula which indicates either a positive or negative from them?
If so, I’ll be willing to give it a shot.
If not, then please don’t even bother responding to this post.
Anything less is truly a waste of my time and yours.
V
Valke2
Guest
I don’t know why, but that little thumbs up emote actually makes me happy.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Okay, here’s the crux of the matter:
You recognize now that my list can’t be contradictory, or at least isn’t in its form.
That means I said something about God that isn’t contradictory, doesn’t it?
If you have to add to it to get contradictions, well…that’s kind of the point I made, wasn’t it?
It’s not an argument that leads to a conclusion. It’s just a set of statements that aren’t contradictory.
That’s all I claimed was possible. Do you agree that this is what happened now?
I
inJESUS
Guest
which means i did something good today
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
No. I’ll explain this below.
No. I’ll explain this below.
But I added nothing to your very first statement. I’ll explain this below.
In addition to that, I actually really did request a lot more from you than this…
…so this isn’t really enough pro.
Not really. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps the latter three points aren’t going to be found to be contradictory-- maybe. Even granting this without further elaboration, the very first statement you presented to start it was contradictory.
Of course, it’s possible. I never said it wasn’t possible to make statements about God that are not contradictory.
I’ve actually done that within this thread using sound reason.
Not really. I still think you did initially contradict yourself with the very first point…
You’re explanation from C.S. Lewis did not actually prove that this statement wasn’t contradictory in my opinion.
So, before we go any further, let’s come back to this very first point.
T
tequilamac
Guest
No this is true. We cannot comprehend infinite. However we can and do simply accept it as truth. In the same way we cannot accept God as dying and rising, but we can simply accept it and know it as truth.
However, in the conversations above, it appears that people are saying God’s attributes contradict themselves which cannot be. While it can be that we see them as contradictory and frankly I cannot see the contradiciton that people are discussing, that does not mean that they are in fact contradictory. Our perceptions are less than perfect.
V
Valke2
Guest
I agree.
I
inJESUS
Guest
ok guys…because of your great posts, i did not go to sleep it’s 6:50 AM
time for Mass :bounce:
God bless you all
it’s 6:50 AM time for Mass :bounce:God bless you all
V
Valke2
Guest
lol. Better sit in the back row and try not to snore.ok guys…because of your great posts, i did not go to sleep
God bless you all
I
inJESUS
Guest
lol i DID sit in the back row, in order to go to confession
cuz the place of confession happens to be at the end of the church 
and here i am, back with you all ouf, nothing like confession ! 
I
inJESUS
Guest
Mr Ex-Nihilo, :tiphat:
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Thank you inJESUS. I know your prayers are helping along the way. Thank God for the Communion of Saints.
I
inJESUS
Guest
i didn’t find a “hug” emoticon but here’s a hug for youThank you inJESUS. I know your prayers are helping along the way. Thank God for the Communion of Saints.
pray for me as well !
P
pro_universal
Guest
Okay, well that’s what you claimed wasn’t possible in the first place, kicking off this whole sub-debate. I’m glad we agree on this now.
Okay, if you want to claim that my explanation didn’t show that there’s no contradiction, go ahead and show me how you reached that conclusion.
K
kellie
Guest
Excellent postHold on a moment there. Let’s back up a little bit.
Actually, you are defining God when you say things about him.
And, for the record, the things you say about him do not say much yet.
Now let’s go through your list below…
Define ‘all powerful’.
For example, does ‘all powerful’ mean that God can do anything? Or can God only do anything he wants to do? Can God only do things which are good? Can God, as the old proverbial question asks, create a stone so heavy that even he cannot pick it up?
Define ‘all knowing’.
For example, does ‘all knowing’ mean that God simultaniously know all things that ever happened, happen, and will happen from all different perspectives in time? Does God know his own past, present and future? Can God go back and change something that he has already done? Can God actually change his mind if he already knows his own future? Can God actually make a choice?
Define ‘immaterial’.
For example, does this mean that God does not have any substance? Does this mean that God is purely spirit? If so, what is spirit? And if there is no adequate definition of spirit available (or God does not actually exist in spirit), does this mean that God does not actually exist? If not, then how does God exist?
Define ‘merciful’.
For example, does this mean God is just and will bring judgment fairly? Does this mean that God will forgive all people with superabundant mercy regardless of what they do? How does God manifest his mercy? Could God reasonably decide to forgive someone who doesn’t deserves forgiveness just because he is merciful? Is God accountable to anyone when distributing his mercy?
Define ‘good’.
For example, if God is good, can God think about evil? Would God thinking about evil make a part of God’s mind evil? Likewise, how can God know if something were evil since he is good? Does God know that evil exists? If so, how does God know evil exists since he is good?
Yes. They most certainly do-- all of them I might add.
For example, if God is all powerful, then this means he can do anything.
But since God is all knowing, this means he can’t be all powerful. Because if God was all powerful, then he would also be able to not know something.
Consequently, God apparently doesn’t know all things anyway. Because if God did know all things, then he would also know of a way to be material as well as immaterial. Consequently, since God apparently can’t become material, he’s apparently again not all powerful either.
Nonetheless, this brings us to mercy. Now since God is immaterial, does this mean his mercy is** immaterial** as well? And if his mercy is not immaterial, then how does God actually manifest his mercy within his creation? If God is all powerful, can he arbitrarilly withhold his mercy and not be held accountable to anyone?
Since God is good, it is clear that he will manifest his mercy somehow. But if God is also immaterial, how does he actually manifest his good in his creation? Likewise, if it is being claimed that God is good, then he apparently can’t do evil-- which is yet another limitation which again proves he’s not all powerful. If God became material would this be considered evil?
My mind is still going around in circles :whacky:
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Whoa, whoa, whoa…
I never said that it was impossible to make statements about God that weren’t contradictory.
Never have I said that.
I’ve only said that you haven’t actually done this yet and that the statements you made about God were contradictory. I even refined your claims for you to present them more reasonably as follows…
No offense pro-- you are the one making the claim that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time.
Everyone here knows that this statement you’ve made is contradictory as it stands-- so it’s your job to refine it for us in a manner which can be examined more carefully without any initial contradiction.
I don’t need formal logic to prove to you that the statement that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time is contradictory. It is self-evident to anyone looking at it that you can’t attribute two infinite attributes to an infinite being without eventually running into a contradiction.
Valke2 actually explained this to you already…and extremely, extremely well I might add…
Can we come back to C.S. Lewis?
P
pro_universal
Guest
Yes you did. That’s how this whole discussion started.
If it’s so obvious, you should be able to show it using logical operations in a flash. Why do you continue to promise that you’re going to do this, yet fail to do it?
It’s a fact, it’s not contradictory. Valk2’s argument depended on me adding in a premise: namely, that none of the definitions could ever be the same thing. That’s not one that is in there. There’s nothing about what I wrote that says mercy can never, under any circumstances, be the same as justice, for example.
And Valke’s claim depended on finity versus infinity, something that if you want to tackle with logic…well, good luck.
I’m going to ask again, and I have to admit, I’m becoming frustrated by your run-around:
Where is your promised logical analysis of my statements, proving that they are contradictory?
If you won’t give one, please explain why.
T
tequilamac
Guest
This is ridiculous. Forget C.S. Lewis- his interpretations did not even come close to the mastery of Thomas Aquinas. For the same reason Aquinas followed: the very idea that there is a God in any religion-Catholicism, Christianity, Islam etc. at any time is not logical. God as a logical concept can only be proven logically by accepting that which is illogical in the first place. God is, to begin with, an illogical concept as He cannot be seen or proven unless one accepts as logical that which is illogical. Aquinas was able to do the best job, but even his logical deductions were reached by accepting illogical proofs. God can only be believed and accepted by faith which in itself is illogical. There is no logical basis for faith, or hope, or charity or any of these things. From the outset they appear illogical. Love one’s enemies" Is that logical? It’s a good way to get onesself killed no isn’t it? Theology by logic usually ends in atheism.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Mr. Ex-Nihilo i respect your patience . Pro is turning round the bush. You explained your position many times, gave many examples yet Pro does not adress them. His responses are getting shorter and shorter.
. Pro is turning round the bush. You explained your position many times, gave many examples yet Pro does not adress them. His responses are getting shorter and shorter.- Status