pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[tequilamac]

Alright, so we’re completely past claiming that my statements about God are contradictory, right? If not, then please list that logical analysis you’ve been claiming you were going to list for several pages now.

I have to reiterate, your use of the idea of the analytic/synthetic in language belies a near complete misunderstanding of the idea. Every single statement here except arguably my examples about the triangle having three angles was synthetic; so is every one you make. Synthetic statements, if they mean anything at all, have logical operators and form arguments that can be understood.

Okay, how is that? I’m using basic rules of inference to show that the various teachings on the trinity contradict each other. It’s not some special recipe logic; it’s the same rules you’d use for any exercise in reasoning.

There is absolutely no “universal logical proof” that says there is no God. Nothing of the sort, so I don’t know what your claim is here.

Is this inevitable because you say so, or is there some kind of logical theory, or a “range of values” that’s going to show this?

It may be that the more I learn, the more I’m impressed and I become convinced that I should’ve always been Muslim. I see no basis for this assertion of yours.

Again, there are inconsistent statements about God, and consistent ones.

No, I haven’t. What I have done is recognized the folly of renaming limits into “powers” and then claiming that God must be able to do all those things. Making the mistake of categorizing something that is in fact a limitation on ones abilities as a “power” will surely lead you into an incoherent vision of an all powerful God.

Catholicism was once a brand new religion too.

I don’t know it well enough nor am I sure enough about my own beliefs to say that I’m 100 percent convinced it’s the truth. But it certainly does contain many true teachings, and that’s an incentive to keep learning.

All religions say many true things. That is why Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise often offer a truthful statement.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Alright, so we’re completely past claiming that my statements about God are contradictory, right?

No. We’re not.

pro:

If not, then please list that logical analysis you’ve been claiming you were going to list for several pages now.

I’ve been doing it for some time now. We’re still right we started from when I asked you why you felt that the Trinity was contradictory whereas your statements about the oneness of God were not.

You are employing a double-standard when you say the things you do-- and your double-standard is one based on faith just like the rest of us.

=I have to reiterate, your use of the idea of the analytic/synthetic in language belies a near complete misunderstanding of the idea. Every single statement here except arguably my examples about the triangle having three angles was synthetic; so is every one you make. Synthetic statements, if they mean anything at all, have logical operators and form arguments that can be understood.

Yes. Just like the Trinity.

You’re belief in God is based on what you believe to be real. And you test it further.

My belief in the Trinity is what I believe to be real. And I test it further.

However, your belief in God is believed by you to be non-contradictory precisely because you’ve already pre-defined the qualities of all-powerful and all-knowing and refused to allow anyone else to contradict it.

pro:

Okay, how is that? I’m using basic rules of inference to show that the various teachings on the trinity contradict each other. It’s not some special recipe logic; it’s the same rules you’d use for any exercise in reasoning.

Then why do some use the rules of inference to say there is no God?

The questions of why an all-loving God allows suffering to happen causes many atheists to not believe in God because they’ve infered that it is contradictory for an all-loving God to cause or even allow such suffering in the first place.

How is this any different from you using basic rules of inference to show that the various teachings on the trinity contradict each other?

pro:

There is absolutely no “universal logical proof” that says there is no God.

There is absolutely no “universal logical proof” that says there is no Trinity either.

pro:

Nothing of the sort, so I don’t know what your claim is here.

I’ve been explaining it for a while now.

pro:

Is this inevitable because you say so, or is there some kind of logical theory, or a “range of values” that’s going to show this?

It’s a revelation. You can choose to take heed to it or else simply ignore it.

That’s your choice. And no logic is going to verify this for you until it actually comes to pass. That’s how revelation works.

pro:

It may be that the more I learn, the more I’m impressed and I become convinced that I should’ve always been Muslim. I see no basis for this assertion of yours.

As with any prophecy, one cannot know for sure until it either happens or doesn’t happen within one’s lifetime.

If the more you learn, and the more you’re impressed and become convinced that you should’ve always been Muslim, become a Muslim and stay that way for the rest of your life, then I will be wrong.

If the more you learn, and the more you’re impressed and become convinced that you should’ve always been Muslim, become a Muslim and then later leave Islam and become an agnostic or atheist for the rest of your life, then I will be right.

And if the more you learn, and the less you’re impressed and become convinced that you should never be a Muslim, never become a Muslim and then become an agnostic or atheist for the rest of your life, then I will be very much right on in what I’ve claimed.

pro:

Again, there are inconsistent statements about God, and consistent ones.

If all-powerful means God can do any thing, then does mean that God do a sinful thing?

I’ve asked you this question many times and you’ve never answered it.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

No, I haven’t. What I have done is recognized the folly of renaming limits into “powers” and then claiming that God must be able to do all those things.

But your statements, as they stand without further inquiry, do apply to God’s limits pro. And this is precisely where you’ve been contradicting yourself all along.

When we ask you a question like can God do a sinful thing, instead of using logic to prove us wrong, you instead revert to this assertion that we have to only use what you’ve provided within your own statements.

But we have been using only that which you’ve provided in your statements for some time now.

So I’ll ask you this simple question again…

If all-powerful means God can do any thing, then does mean that God do a sinful thing?

Using you own statements above, by the rules of formal logic, it seems clear to me that you do believe that, since God can do any thing, you also believe that God do a sinful thing.

Am I a) using the rules of formal logic when infering this knowledge from your statements, or am I b) adding anything to your statements when infering this knowledge from your statements?

If you answer yes to a) then you are using the rules of formal logic and admitting that God can do a sinful thing. But God being good cannot sin by your own statements-- unless you’re saying that the ability to sin is good. That’s a contradiction

If you answer no to a) then you are not using the rules of formal logic and instead adding information to your original statements in order to infer that God cannot do a sinful thing. And in doing this, you are actually negating your own usage of formal logic by presenting a synthetic statement and contradicting your own claim that your statements are non-contradictory by virtue of their own definitions.

Can I make it any clearer?

Or do you want me to go into the inverse proportion of what it means if you answer yes or no to point b) noted above?

pro:

Making the mistake of categorizing something that is in fact a limitation on ones abilities as a “power” will surely lead you into an incoherent vision of an all powerful God.

Really? Do you know of any other way to categorize facts when using formal logic? If you do, then you’re not actually using formal logic in doing so. That’s a contradiction too.

pro:

Catholicism was once a brand new religion too.

I never said that Catholicism was never a brand new religion.

I’ve only claimed that Catholicism, unlike many other religions, including most Protestant Christian religions and Islam itself, started from the belief that something was fulfilled which removed their doubts about God.

Protestant Christian religions and Islam itself started from the opposite perspective of doubting what was originally revealed through God and moved on from there to form their own religions.

pro:

I don’t know it well enough nor am I sure enough about my own beliefs to say that I’m 100 percent convinced it’s the truth. But it certainly does contain many true teachings, and that’s an incentive to keep learning.

I actually agree with you on this. I think one can be very much blessed by God for looking into Islam. I don’t think the complete teachings about God are there. And I definitely think there are some aberations in the Islamic faith from God’s original deposit as revealed within Catholicism.

But I definitely do not believe that Islam is inherently evil as others have said. Only that whatever was added by Islam represents a degradation from God’s revelation and potentially leads one towards evil acts which can be reasoned away as good despite their inherently evil nature.

That’s pretty much what Pope Benedict XVI was saying too.

 

[pro_universal]

I’ve been doing it for some time now. We’re still right we started from when I asked you why you felt that the Trinity was contradictory whereas your statements about the oneness of God were not.

Well, for one, my statements don’t have contradictions. That’s the only reason, really.

You are employing a double-standard when you say the things you do-- and your double-standard is one based on faith just like the rest of us.

No. I applied some basic logic to the teachings. There’s no magic logic that says my statements were without contradiction. It’s the same inferences applied to both.

My belief in the Trinity is what I believe to be real. And I test it further.

Sure, but you don’t test it with logic. Maybe it does something else for you, and I’m open to that. But it’s not a logically consistent doctrine.

However, your belief in God is believed by you to be non-contradictory precisely because you’ve already pre-defined the qualities of all-powerful and all-knowing and refused to allow anyone else to contradict it.

You’re right. That’s exactly what I did. That’s what it means to say something non-contradictory: to construct a set of statements that by definition do not affirm and negate each other at the same time.

Then why do some use the rules of inference to say there is no God?

They use them poorly, that’s why.

There is absolutely no “universal logical proof” that says there is no Trinity either.

Absolutely correct, and I made no such claim.

It’s a revelation. You can choose to take heed to it or else simply ignore it.

But it’s an inconsistent revelation. That’s the point. Maybe you believe it, I don’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that it has problems in its logical structure.

If all-powerful means God can do any thing, then does mean that God do a sinful thing?

I’ve asked you this question many times and you’ve never answered it.

continued…

I answered this directly. By my definition of good, it’s quite impossible for God to do a sinful thing…but that’s because of the definition: anything God does is by definition good, because good just means “whatever god wills.”

 

[eleonardo]

I answered this directly. By my definition of good, it’s quite impossible for God to do a sinful thing…but that’s because of the definition: anything God does is by definition good, because good just means “whatever god wills.”

This is quite amusing. I can define anything using my own definitions.

 

[pro_universal]

This is quite amusing. I can define anything using my own definitions.

I hate to point out the obvious, but that’s what you’re doing every time you write. Your words are yours.

 

[eleonardo]

I hate to point out the obvious, but that’s what you’re doing every time you write. Your words are yours.

Oh but au contraire. You love poining out the “obvious”.
As for your comment:
Last time I went to the MacDonalds and asked for a hamburger, the girl at the counter gave me a hamburger.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, for one, my statements don’t have contradictions. That’s the only reason, really.

But that’s not what’s going on.

What’s really happening is when we point out a contradiction to you, you suddenly add additional information to your initial statements, information that was not in your original statements-- therefore contradicting your claim that you statements are non-contradictory as they stand on their own merit.

pro:

No. I applied some basic logic to the teachings. There’s no magic logic that says my statements were without contradiction. It’s the same inferences applied to both.

Then why do you have to add additional information in order to understand your statements further?

pro:

Sure, but you don’t test it with logic. Maybe it does something else for you, and I’m open to that. But it’s not a logically consistent doctrine.

I’ll explain this in more detail later. I want to cover a few other things first.

pro:

You’re right. That’s exactly what I did. That’s what it means to say something non-contradictory: to construct a set of statements that by definition do not affirm and negate each other at the same time.

Then why did you have to add additional information upon further inquiry, analogies even, in order to iron out the contradictions in your statements?

pro:

They use them poorly, that’s why.

So what’s to say that you or I are not using them poorly?

pro:

Absolutely correct, and I made no such claim.

Yes you did.

First of all, you claimed the following right here…

pro:

The words themselves are contradictory; the nature of God and truth out there is not relevant to a discussion about whether or not the trinity is contradictory.

…and essentially insisted that the trinity was obviously contradictory whereas your beliefs about God were not.

And earlier, starting this all of, you said this.

Since that time, inJESUS, Mickey, jAlex, prayforwisdom, Contarini, tequilamac, Prometheus1974, Semper Fi, and lrs all gave you reasonable analogies whereby you could understand the Trinity better

In addition to this, Image of God, repsonding to M_Oliver, also gave much in this regard too-- even though he didn’t directly address your statements.

Likewise, I’ve addressed your thoughts as well-- and in detail, some of which you haven’t really addressed except to say…

pro:

Again, the analogy works precisely because you’re choosing a “parts make up the whole” situation. You can choose non-contradictory analogies all you like, but they won’t ever match the trinity exactly, which is why you are still compelled to point out…

Which is why I’m compelled to point out that your own analogies likewise work precisely because you’re choosing a “parts make up the whole” situation. You can also choose non-contradictory analogies all you like, but they won’t ever match God exactly.

In fact, I’ll explain below exactly where you’ve done exactly what you’re claiming that we’re all doing.

pro:

But it’s an inconsistent revelation. That’s the point. Maybe you believe it, I don’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that it has problems in its logical structure.

Your statements about God are also inconsistent – I’ve pointed out one very strong contradiction regarding your claim that God can do any thing – and yet you don’t seem to mind adding more information when necessary (information that was not in your original formula) in order to vindicate your own belief that your statements are not contradictory.

Here’s an excellent sample below…

pro:

I answered this directly. By my definition of good, it’s quite impossible for God to do a sinful thing…but that’s because of the definition: anything God does is by definition good, because good just means “whatever god wills.”

What exactly does this mean?

It seems to me that, with this addition, you’ve basically swept aside all your other statements thus far-- and essentially rendered their efficacy useless as far as meaningfully desribing God in a logical way.

Therefore, with this statement you made above, the mongoose no longer has the cobra by the the tail. The little animal now has the serpent by its hood, scales flying in many directions, and is moving in swiftly for the kill.

From here on in, his little white teeth are clenched on her head…

 

[pro_universal]

What’s really happening is when we point out a contradiction to you, you suddenly add additional information to your initial statements, information that was not in your original statements-- therefore contradicting your claim that you statements are non-contradictory as they stand on their own merit.

Wait a minute, my statements were fine on their own, but you wanted definitions in order to “make them more useful.” I defined my terms further on your request, and now you’re saying that this “contradicts my original claim…”…no, what it does is show that I can define all my terms without contradiction.

There was no contradiction to iron out in the first place. If there were, you easily could have shown that already…but you’re not doing it. Notice the complete lack of anything resembling a logical argument (you know, like the one you promised several times.)

Your statements about God are also inconsistent – I’ve pointed out one very strong contradiction regarding your claim that God can do any thing – and yet you don’t seem to mind adding more information when necessary (information that was not in your original formula) in order to vindicate your own belief that your statements are not contradictory.

Uh, no. Your statement was based on an assumed definition that you created, not me. I gave you mine to show you what I defined the terms to mean, and hence, that I was not making a contradictory statement. We went over this: your statements and assumptions are your own, and have no relationship to mine.

What exactly does this mean?

It means that good is just whatever God does. How is that a problem, and what’s unclear about it?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I answered this directly. By my definition of good, it’s quite impossible for God to do a sinful thing…but that’s because of the definition: anything God does is by definition good, because good just means “whatever god wills.”

But’s that’s not what you said before.

This is what you said before…

pro:

I can’t define God, but I can say things about him that are not contradictory.

For example: God is all powerful and all Knowing.

God is immaterial

God is merciful

God is good.

None of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

First of all, since I’m apparently not allowed to add anything to your definition, where is God’s will mentioned in your statements above?

Are you adding an analogy to your initial statements in order to make them non-contradictory?

Or is God’s will something which one should be able to logically infer from the information contained within your statements

Actually, let’s look at this again…
Mr. Ex:

If all-powerful means God can do any thing, then does mean that God do a sinful thing?

Using you own statements above, by the rules of formal logic, it seems clear to me that you do believe that, since God can do any thing, you also believe that God do a sinful thing.

Am I a) using the rules of formal logic when infering this knowledge from your statements, or am I b) adding anything to your statements when infering this knowledge from your statements?

If you answer yes to a) then you are using the rules of formal logic and admitting that God can do a sinful thing. But God being good cannot sin by your own statements-- unless you’re saying that the ability to sin is good. That’s a contradiction

If you answer no to a) then you are not using the rules of formal logic and instead adding information to your original statements in order to infer that God cannot do a sinful thing. And in doing this, you are actually negating your own usage of formal logic by presenting a synthetic statement and contradicting your own claim that your statements are non-contradictory by virtue of their own definitions.

Can I make it any clearer?

Second of all, let me get this straight, God cannot just do anything, except that which is good?

But then doesn’t this mean that, since God is good, that God cannot actually sin?

And if God cannot actually sin, and this represents a very real limitation on his ability to do things, then how can it be claimed that God can do any thing?

Which one is it: Can God do any thing or can’t he?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Wait a minute, my statements were fine on their own, but you wanted definitions in order to “make them more useful.” I defined my terms further on your request, and now you’re saying that this “contradicts my original claim…”…no, what it does is show that I can define all my terms without contradiction.

There was no contradiction to iron out in the first place. If there were, you easily could have shown that already…but you’re not doing it. Notice the complete lack of anything resembling a logical argument (you know, like the one you promised several times.)

Uh, no. Your statement was based on an assumed definition that you created, not me. I gave you mine to show you what I defined the terms to mean, and hence, that I was not making a contradictory statement. We went over this: your statements and assumptions are your own, and have no relationship to mine.

It means that good is just whatever God does. How is that a problem, and what’s unclear about it?

But God cannot just do anything, except that which is good, correct?

But then doesn’t this mean that, since God is good, that God cannot actually sin?

And if God cannot actually sin, and if this represents a very real limitation on his ability to do things, then how can it be claimed that God can do any thing?

Which one is it: Can God do any thing or can’t he?

 

[pro_universal]

First of all, since I’m apparently not allowed to add anything to your definition, where is God’s will mentioned in your statements above?

It’s not. I defined “good” with God’s will when you asked me to define it further.

Are you adding an analogy to your initial statements in order to make them non-contradictory?

Uh, no. I’m not sure how it’s possible for you to know what an analogy is, and still need to ask this question.

Second of all, let me get this straight, God cannot just do anything, except that which is good?

Absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as a thing which God does that is bad. That’s what it’s saying. Hence, there is nothing God cannot do, since the whole class of things that God does is by definition good. A thing that God does, but is bad, is not a thing at all (since no such thing exists or even can exist.)

But then doesn’t this mean that, since God is good, that God cannot actually sin?

That’s precisely what I’m saying.

And if God cannot actually sin, and this represents a very real limitation on his ability to do things, then how can it be claimed that God can do any thing?

No, it doesn’t. That’s presuming a definition of sin that I don’t use. Maybe you think there are universal laws of right and wrong that bind God; it’s not necessary to claim this, and I don’t.

Which one is it: Can God do any thing or can’t he?

God can do anything. And anything he does is by definition good.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

God can do anything. And anything he does is by definition good.

Then this means that God can only do good and that he cannot do evil-- which means that God cannot do any thing as you initially claimed.

I’ve added nothing to your initial statements.

And this is a contradiction.

images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t065/T065473A.jpg

 

[pro_universal]

Then this means that God can only do good and that he cannot do evil-- which means that God cannot do any thing as you initially claimed.

I’ve added nothing to your initial statements.

And this is a contradiction.

images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t065/T065473A.jpg

No, it’s not a contradiction.

You’re defining “evil” as if it’s some thing that’s out there, that God can’t do. That’s not the case for this set of definitions.

There is no such thing, even in theory, as an “evil act” that God can commit. Everything God does is good by virtue of the fact that God does it; hence, there is no thing that God cannot do, there are only incoherent claims about “God can’t sin!” purporting to be limits. In reality, there’s no set of things (or even a coherent category of things) under the description of “God’s sins” due to the very definition of sin.

You’re basically taking a nonsense word, and saying “See, god isn’t all powerful because he can’t do laklakajlaalakal;”. That’s about how sensible saying “God can’t sin” is when “good” is defined as “whatever God does.”

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, it’s not a contradiction.

Only because you refuse to admit it pro.

pro:

You’re defining “evil” as if it’s some thing that’s out there, that God can’t do. That’s not the case for this set of definitions.

No. I’m defining evil based on the Scriptures, specifically what God himself has revealed as sinful.

God cannot lie for example.

This isn’t some abstract concept which bears no practical value to our concepts about God. In fact, if God could lie, then one has to wonder why anyone would even trust anything he reveals about himself.

Do you think God can lie?

If not, then you admit that there’s something that God cannot do.

pro:

There is no such thing, even in theory, as an “evil act” that God can commit.

I would say that God cannot commit adultery.

I would say that this is an “evil act” that God cannot commit.

Do you think God can commit adultery?

If not, then you admit that there’s something that God cannot do.

pro:

Everything God does is good by virtue of the fact that God does it; hence, there is no thing that God cannot do, there are only incoherent claims about “God can’t sin!” purporting to be limits.

But they are real limits pro.

Ya canna snake your way 'round this part laddee, no matter how much you twist and turn.

pro:

In reality, there’s no set of things (or even a coherent category of things) under the description of “God’s sins” due to the very definition of sin.

I would say that God cannot murder.

I would say that these points I’ve brought up so far do indeed form a coherent category of things under the description of what God himself defines as sins that God himself cannot do.

Do think God can commit murder?

If not, then you admit that there’s something that God cannot do.

pro:

You’re basically taking a nonsense word, and saying “See, god isn’t all powerful because he can’t do laklakajlaalakal;”.

Actually, I would say that defining “evil” as if it’s nothing that God himself considers sinful is the nonesense.

I would say that God cannot covet.

I would say that this is yet another “evil act” that God cannot commit.

Do you think God can covet?

If not, then you admit that there’s something that God cannot do.

pro:

That’s about how sensible saying “God can’t sin” is when “good” is defined as “whatever God does.”

God is always good. God is never evil.

That’s the ultimate contradiction that no man’s logic can escape on that judgement day, no matter how hard they try.

I think you need to work on this idea a little bit more pro.

Y’know…flesh it out a little bit. Cause as it stands right now, you are contradicting yourself.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

God is always good.

Allah is evil.

Ergo: Allah is not God.

Thank you very much,
Rodrigo

 

[pro_universal]

No. I’m defining evil based on the Scriptures, specifically what God himself has revealed as sinful.

Ah, okay, so you’re using something other than my definitions. Hence, my statement isn’t contradictory, even if your own ideas grafted onto them might be.

This isn’t some abstract concept which bears no practical value to our concepts about God. In fact, if God could lie, then one has to wonder why anyone would even trust anything he reveals about himself.

Maybe so, but that has zero bearing on whether or not these things are logical.

Do you think God can lie?

In a sense, yes. God could disguise someone in order to help him escape an invading army, or fool an enemy of the Israelites into being afraid of them by making their armies appear larger, for example. (I wouldn’t call that lying, but that’s the extent of it.)

I would say that God cannot commit adultery.

That’s a non-issue, another of those things that doesn’t exist by definition.

But they are real limits pro.

You saying they’re real limits doesn’t make it so. There’s no snaking going on there; I explained to you the obvious point that defining Good as “whatever God does” makes talk of God sinning nonsense-speak. Your only response so far is the assertion above.

I would say that God cannot murder.

I would say that these points I’ve brought up so far do indeed form a coherent category of things under the description of what God himself defines as sins that God himself cannot do.

These are definitional things. Murder by definition is something sinful; and anything God does is by definition not sinful.

Your “limit” is akin to asking: “Can God do something without doing something?”

There’s no category of things that fits the claim. Hence, it’s not a limit on God, it’s an example of gross syntax error on your part.

God is always good. God is never evil.

That’s the ultimate contradiction that no man’s logic can escape on that judgement day, no matter how hard they try.

I think you need to work on this idea a little bit more pro.

Y’know…flesh it out a little bit. Cause as it stands right now, you are contradicting yourself.

Well, you keep repeating that, but these offered methods to prove it have suspiciously never appeared. You can smile and post lots of pictures if you want, but that doesn’t really change the fact that you have offered no more than assertions to back up your charge.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ah, okay, so you’re using something other than my definitions. Hence, my statement isn’t contradictory, even if your own ideas grafted onto them might be.

This is more word magic on your part pro.

When it’s convenient for you to do so, you allow the definitions you’ve allowed to speak on their own behalf.

But when it’s not convenient for you to do so, you don’t allow the definitions you’ve allowed to speak on their own behalf.

pro:

Maybe so, but that has zero bearing on whether or not these things are logical.

Sure it does.

If I say “a rock cannot talk”, and you point out to me that rocks could never talk in the first place, this doesn’t negate the fact that rocks cannot talk. It only begins to explain why a rock cannot talk-- thus allowing us to infer more infomation about the truthfulness of the statement “a rock cannot talk”.

This is how logic is employed.

pro:

In a sense, yes. God could disguise someone in order to help him escape an invading army, or fool an enemy of the Israelites into being afraid of them by making their armies appear larger, for example. (I wouldn’t call that lying, but that’s the extent of it.)

But that’s not lying. So God can’t do it. Period.

pro:

That’s a non-issue, another of those things that doesn’t exist by definition.

Only because of the word magic you’re using.

pro:

You saying they’re real limits doesn’t make it so.

Why not?

If I say “an ameoba cannot do calculus”, and you point out to me that ameobae could never do calculus in the first place, this doesn’t negate the fact that ameobae cannot do calculus. It only begins to explain why an ameoba cannot do calculus-- thus allowing us to infer more infomation about the truthfulness of the statement “an ameoba cannot do calculus”.

pro:

There’s no snaking going on there; I explained to you the obvious point that defining Good as “whatever God does” makes talk of God sinning nonsense-speak.

It doesn’t explain why defining Good as “whatever God does” doesn’t represent a real limit in what God himself can do.

Regardless of what you say, there are things that, according to your own words, God cannot do no matter how much you reword your argument. Therefore your statement is contradicted. And the only reason why you’re insisting it’s not contradicted is because you don’t want to acknowledge that you’ve contradicted yourself.

pro:

Your only response so far is the assertion above.

If I say “a snail cannot fly by its own power”, and you point out to me that snails could never fly by their own power in the first place, this doesn’t negate the fact that snails cannot fly by their own power. It only begins to explain why a snail cannot fly by its own power-- thus allowing us to infer more infomation about the truthfulness of the statement “a snail cannot fly by its own power”.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

These are definitional things. Murder by definition is something sinful; and anything God does is by definition not sinful.

But here’s how it works.

We both believe that God cannot sin.

I believe, in accordance with Catholicism, that God not being able to sin represents a true limit on God’s ability. But it’s his inability to sin that makes him all-powerful-- even as I acknowledge that God has limits.

You believe, in accordance with the Islamic view, that God being all-powerful means that God has no limits on his ability. But it’s his all-powerful nature that makes his every action good-- even as you refuse to admit that God has limits.

Now take a good look above and tell me which view represents one logical inference from the other?

Which statement is phrased more logically?

pro:

Your “limit” is akin to asking: “Can God do something without doing something?”

Strange.

Every other time I see this kind of inference occuring it seems to represent a real and tangible limit on their ability to act.

If I say “a rock cannot talk”, I’m not asking “Can a rock do something without doing something?” I’m stating a rock cannot talk.

If I say “an ameoba cannot do calculus”, I’m not asking “Can an ameoba do something without doing something?” I’m stating an ameoba cannot do calculus.

If I say “a snail cannot fly by its own power”, I’m not asking “Can a snail do something without doing something?” I’m stating a snail cannot fly by its own power.

If I say “God cannot sin”, I’m not asking “Can God do something without doing something?” I’m stating that God cannot sin.

pro:

There’s no category of things that fits the claim. Hence, it’s not a limit on God, it’s an example of gross syntax error on your part.

If I say “a rock cannot talk”, is this a gross syntax error on my part?

If I say “an ameoba cannot do calculus”, is this a gross syntax error on my part?

If I say “a snail cannot fly by its own power”, is this a gross syntax error on my part?

If not, then why is it a gross syntax error on my part when I say “God cannot sin”?

pro:

Well, you keep repeating that, but these offered methods to prove it have suspiciously never appeared.

I’ve proven it many times already using formal logic over and over again for you to clearly examine in great detail.

pro:

You can smile and post lots of pictures if you want, but that doesn’t really change the fact that you have offered no more than assertions to back up your charge.

Here’s the smile again ----->

Please note that I haven’t linked a picture right here this time ----->

But that doesn’t really change the fact that you don’t actually really undertand how logic works in the first place.

And yeah…I’ll keep going with this as long as you want to keep playing this game.

Here’s another smile by the way ----->

 

[joebaydi]

salam

can someone please define wot a sin actually is please?