pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex:

On a philosophical level, you already realize that the philosophy of time and space actually forms the basis of one of the rules for constructing valid syllogism, correct?

pro:

Um…no. Mathematical rules of inference are what make something logical or not.

“Hey, Dad. Can I borrow the Time machine tonight?”

“Sure son. Just be sure you have it back before you leave.”

Thinking of Time
Mendilow: 1952:

Nothing puzzles me more than time and space and yet nothing puzzles me less, for I never think about them.

Saint Augustine: 354 - 430:

What is time? If no one asks me, I know; but when I am asked, I am baffled.

Alfred North Whitehead: 1861 - 1947:

It is impossible to mediate on time…without an overwhelming emotion at the limitations of human intelligence.

What is Time?
Ray Cummings: The Time Professor:

Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: 1642-1727:

Time is the order of possibilities which cannot coexist and therefore must exist successfully.

Plato: 428 - 348: Timaeus:

Time is moving image of eternity.

Plato: Timaeus:

Thus time came into being with the heavens in order that, having come into being together, they should also be dissolved together if ever they are dissolved; and it was made as like as possible to eternity, which was its model.

[there is]
the Plain of Truth, in which lie the designs, moulds, ideas, and invariable examples of all things which were, or shall be; and about there is Eternity, whence flowed Time, as from a river, into worlds.

Aristotle: Physics:

…time cannot be disconnected from change, for we experience no changes in consciousness, or if we are not aware of them, no time seems to have passed.

We are not aware of time when we do not distinguish any change.

Absolute Time
Isaac Barrow: Lectiones Geometricae: 1676:

Whether things run or stand still, whether we sleep or wake, time flows in its even tenor.

Sir Isaac Newton: 1642 - 1727: Principia:

Absolute, true, and mathematical time of itself and from its own nature . . . flows equably without relation to anything external.

Isaac Barrow: Newton's teacher:

Because Mathematicians frequently make use of Time, they ought to have a distinct Idea of the meaning of the Word, otherwise they are Quacks.

Against the Absolute Time
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: 1642-1727:

…space and time are orders of things and not things.

Immanuel Kant: 1749 - 1827: Critique of Pure Reason:

Time is not something objective. It is neither substance nor accident nor relation, but a subjective condition, necessary owing to the nature of the human mind.

Henri Poincar:

e: La Science et l’Hipoth
[quoteese 1902]
There is no absolute time; to say that two durations are equal is an assertion which has by itself no meaning and which can acquire one only by convention.

Henri Poincar:

e La Science et l’Hipoth
[quoteese 1902]
Not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two durations, but we have not even direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events occurring in different places.

I could go into Relativistic Time, but it really does get complicated from there.

Instead I’ll leave off with a quote from Mel Brooks: Spaceballs, 1987.
Lord Helmet and his General:

What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?

Now! You’re looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening, now.

What happened to then?

We’re past that.

When?

Just now. We’re now, now.

Go back to then.

When?

Now.

Now?

Now!

I can’t.

Why?

We missed it.

When?

Just now.

(after some rewinding)

When will then be now?

Soon.

 

[pro_universal]

That’s simply false. The entire concept of the philosophy of time rests on the initial premises of past, present and future perspectives. Without this distinction, there would be no concept of time.

Well, that’s your claim, but you don’t really know anything about the philosophy of time. If I wrote an entire treatise here for you to read, you might or might not be up to speed on the debate. I’m sorry to put it this way, but this smacks of your claims about training in formal logic. It’s obvious from these comments that you have almost no grounding in the philosophical question here. It’s completely wrong.

I said the entire basis of our comprehension of time, the philosophy of space and time itself, rests upon the trinitarian distinction of past, present, and future perspectives-- and the link from “Trinity.edu” displays just one of the trinitiarian formulae involved.

But it’s not trinitarian. Using three labels to describe a stream of events is you reaching for a trinity. The only thing “triune” about it is that you used three words; there’s absolutely nothing like a “threeness” in the experience of time.

You are, after all, saying that God can do any thing except sin because anything God does is good-- and then you make the claim that God can still do any thing even though you admit there are things that God, by his very nature, cannot do

Note the total absence of anything like a logical showing of this claim. Reason being, that you either can’t, or you did and realize that I was correct in asserting that there is no contradiction in the terms.

And then, thirdly, you are saying that, since whatever God does is good, this somehow proves that God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing.

You can’t get much more contradictory than that.

The reality is that this is so far from a “logical inference” there’s not much to say about it. Back to the drawing board.

I’ll request again that you just try to represent this point and show me the argument. If you will not do this (as promised) please explain why.

 

[pro_universal]

I’m saying that we know that the time continuum works within the framework of past, present and future perspectives regardless of the fact that we don’t understand how the mechanics of the time continuum works on purely physical level.

The problem is that “past, present, and future” are simple labels that apply to a stream. There is no “three part division”; there are only three terms that you’re choosing to use. Time itself is a stream, with no “three distinct personalities.” You are describing the same thing when you describe time as past and future; the only difference is your position on the line. Nothing about time itself is “distinct” (to use a trinitarian term) in that analogy.

In other words, our inability to understand the physical mechanics of how a process works in no way invalidates the fact something works the way it reveals itself to work.

It’s interesting that you quoted Kant below. A short read of Critique of Pure Reason will clear this up for you. The fact that we “understand” something in no way indicates that it actually works that way.

Consequently, our inability to understand the physical mechanics of how the Trinity works in no way invalidates the fact that our Triune God works the way he reveals himself to work-- as a Trinity.

Okay, that’s an admission that the doctrine doesn’t make sense to us. We just believe it because it’s revealed. That’s been my point on the whole thread.

…but if this is true, then why do you say that the best of the inadequate analogies is the picture or sculpture analogy?

Because they most accurately map the idea of “one substance” being “three distinct persons.” There are three images but one photo in the “perspective” pictures. The problem with this is that it clearly depends upon our perception and relationship to the object, not on the nature of the object itself (which is the same no matter how we look at it.) That’s why it isn’t paradoxical; that’s why it doesn’t really map the trinity fully either.

If so, then you also realize that time is simply an expansion of three-dimensional geometry from the reference point of a fourth dimension, correct?

Wow…you need to read the actual books instead of the bartlet quotations.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, that’s your claim, but you don’t really know anything about the philosophy of time. If I wrote an entire treatise here for you to read, you might or might not be up to speed on the debate. I’m sorry to put it this way, but this smacks of your claims about training in formal logic. It’s obvious from these comments that you have almost no grounding in the philosophical question here. It’s completely wrong.

Translation:

pro_universal:

I can’t prove you wrong. So I’ll just do what I always do, and try to besmirch your reputation by claiming you don’t know what you’re talking about instead of debating your arguments.

sigh

pro:

But it’s not trinitarian. Using three labels to describe a stream of events is you reaching for a trinity. The only thing “triune” about it is that you used three words; there’s absolutely nothing like a “threeness” in the experience of time.

There’s past, present and future tense.

Sounds like a “threeness” in the experience of time to me.

Sounds like a “threeness” in the experience of time for everyone else too.

pro:

Note the total absence of anything like a logical showing of this claim. Reason being, that you either can’t, or you did and realize that I was correct in asserting that there is no contradiction in the terms.

I did respond here.

God is all powerful.
If God is immaterial, then God is not all powerful.
God is immaterial

God is all powerful.
If God is merciful, then God is not all powerful.
God is merciful.

God is all powerful.
If God is good, then God is not all powerful.
God is good.

These are your terms, are they not?

This isn’t complete, but this was going to lead into my next few points-- and you never repsonded to this so I was waiting.

pro:

The reality is that this is so far from a “logical inference” there’s not much to say about it. Back to the drawing board.

Translation:

pro_universal:

I can’t prove you wrong. So I’ll just do what I always do, and try to besmirch your reputation by claiming you don’t know what you’re talking about instead of debating your arguments.

This is really getting tiring pro. Will you stop doing this please?

Debate the idea and not the person.

pro:

I’ll request again that you just try to represent this point and show me the argument. If you will not do this (as promised) please explain why.

Apparently, according to you, I don’t actually know how-- even though I’ve been doing this through the thread.

So if I actually present it, does this mean that it wasn’t a fact after all that I had no intention of doing it?

 

[amoxoxoma]

Well, that’s your claim, but you don’t really know anything about the philosophy of time. If I wrote an entire treatise here for you to read, you might or might not be up to speed on the debate. … It’s obvious from these comments that you have almost no grounding in the philosophical question here. It’s completely wrong.

Nothing but a stream of personal insults. The writer seems to be getting quite cranky. The dark side of pompous superciliousness indicates a complete lack of charity. The deluded notion that no one in the world can hold a candle to one’s brilliance apparently indicates that such a one is stuck in the rebellion of adolescence.

Mr. Ex Nihilo, your attempt to have a reasonable discussion is admirable. You demonstrate the patience of Job in the face of Medusa’s head.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The problem is that “past, present, and future” are simple labels that apply to a stream. There is no “three part division”; there are only three terms that you’re choosing to use. Time itself is a stream, with no “three distinct personalities.” You are describing the same thing when you describe time as past and future; the only difference is your position on the line. Nothing about time itself is “distinct” (to use a trinitarian term) in that analogy.

And yet, past, present and future are indeed ‘distinct’ from each other, just like the analogy I already noted.

pro:

It’s interesting that you quoted Kant below. A short read of Critique of Pure Reason will clear this up for you. The fact that we “understand” something in no way indicates that it actually works that way.

Then you have to also grasp that just because you “understand” God to be non-Triune in no way indicates that God actually works that way, correct?

pro:

Okay, that’s an admission that the doctrine doesn’t make sense to us.

No more so than admitting that we don’t know how time can be exprienced as three distinct perspectives and yet be still the same. I’m taking about the mechanics behind the appearance pro.

Time is experienced by us as past, present, and future.

God experiences his creation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Our inability to understand the physical mechanics of how the Trinity works in no way invalidates the fact that our Triune God works the way he reveals himself to work-- as a Trinity.

pro:

We just believe it because it’s revealed. That’s been my point on the whole thread.

No. That has not been your point on the whole thread.

First of all, you’ve started off considering your own human reason as being akin to a divine revelation that is logically valid even as you’ve claimed the Christian revelation seems actually more akin to a human construct which is logically invalid.

Second of all, you’ve gone further and actually consistently claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is invalidated by logic because it is inconsistent-- and you even provided the formula for it and likewise demanded that we invalidate your argument by these same rules.

Third of all, you’ve consistently ignored the analogies we’ve offered for you to understand the trinity better-- and you’ve specifically adhered to the most strict usages of logic when doing so in order to continue to ignore what we’ve offered to you.

Fourth of all, it’s not an admission that the doctrine doesn’t make sense to us-- especially since the doctrine does make sense to us. It’s an admission that God, who has revealed himself as Triune in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, can be understood with an analogy from nature itself.
Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Fifth of all, we’ve never claimed that all things about God can be fully understood from a human perspective. Of course we believe it because it’s revealed from God-- but that’s not the point. The point that we’re trying to make you understand the distinction between revelation and reason, and the limits of human logic when discerning these things of faith.

That’s the point of this thread pro.

pro:

Because they most accurately map the idea of “one substance” being “three distinct persons.” There are three images but one photo in the “perspective” pictures. The problem with this is that it clearly depends upon our perception and relationship to the object, not on the nature of the object itself (which is the same no matter how we look at it.) That’s why it isn’t paradoxical; that’s why it doesn’t really map the trinity fully either.

Then how does this not apply in the same fashion from a four dimensional perspective?

pro:

Wow…you need to read the actual books instead of the bartlet quotations.

Thank you.

Now can you just answer my questions without insulting me?

That’d be great.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Pro, have you ever seen this show?

Finding God Through Faith and Reason

Here’s his CV if you’re interested.

 

[pro_universal]

There’s past, present and future tense.

Sounds like a “threeness” in the experience of time to me.

Sounds like a “threeness” in the experience of time for everyone else too.

The point was that the “threeness” is only in words and perception. That’s a fact that’s fatal to any analogy to the trinity right there. The teaching isn’t “God appears to be three but really he could be something else, just like time.”

You cited philosophies of time to try and prove the point. But those philosophies shatter any simple notion of “time as past, present, and future” threeness.

These are your terms, are they not?

No, they aren’t. The conditionals in each syllogism are entirely your creation.

This is really getting tiring pro. Will you stop doing this please?

Debate the idea and not the person.

I’m sorry, but you’ve misrepresented some fields so badly that there’s no point in giving a long explanation to show it. When you have done that, I’ll point it out and leave it to your coursework to remedy the deficiency. I might have had more patience for this if you hadn’t spent pages claiming to have some experience with formal logic, all the while posting statements that made it obvious you had no idea (the whole “range of values” thing, remember?).

Apparently, according to you, I don’t actually know how-- even though I’ve been doing this through the thread.

Uh, okay, where were all the symbols and notation and numbered lines with cited rules of inference? I must have missed that. All I saw were a few syllogisms, which are the medieval version of modern logic.

 

[pro_universal]

Yes. In fact I said that explicitly more than three times in this thread.

No more so than admitting that we don’t know how time can be exprienced as three distinct perspectives and yet be still the same. I’m taking about the mechanics behind the appearance pro.

Then you are wasting your time, because there is no “threeness” in the mechanics of time. This is just shocking, that you claim here to say you’re talking about “the mechanics behind the appearance”, and then you go on to say:

Time is **experienced by us **

as past, present, and future.

Experienced by us=appearance.

God experiences his creation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So says you, but that’s an incoherent doctrine if you flesh it out.

Our inability to understand the physical mechanics of how the Trinity works in no way invalidates the fact that our Triune God works the way he reveals himself to work-- as a Trinity.

The physical mechanics are not the problem. The logical mechanics are the problem.

First of all, you’ve started off considering your own human reason as being akin to a divine revelation that is logically valid even as you’ve claimed the Christian revelation seems actually more akin to a human construct which is logically invalid.

Okay, so what is your argument? Are you abandoning the claim that the trinity is logical, or are you not? It’s weird…on the one hand, you’re desperate to show that it is a logical teaching. And on the other, you’re telling me that no “human” logic will grasp it. So which is it?

Third of all, you’ve consistently ignored the analogies we’ve offered for you to understand the trinity better-- and you’ve specifically adhered to the most strict usages of logic when doing so in order to continue to ignore what we’ve offered to you.

I understand the trinity just fine. That’s why I recognize a bad analogy to it immediately.

It’s an admission that God, who has revealed himself as Triune in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, can be understood with an analogy from nature itself.

Okay, if an analogy is the only defense you have, and not a logical explanation of the teaching…what’s the natural conclusion there? That it’s logical but you just can’t show that without talking about “the majest of time”?

The point that we’re trying to make you understand the distinction between revelation and reason, and the limits of human logic when discerning these things of faith.

Here’s that tension again. I’m claiming that the trinity is not a logical teaching. If you want to believe it out of faith, fine, but it’s not logically consistent.

Which is it? Are you saying that it requires faith to make sense, or are you saying that it’s logical of its own accord?

Now can you just answer my questions without insulting me?

That’d be great.

I honestly do not mean to insult you, but I have to make it clear to you that your misrepresentation of a philosophical point or some field of study (where I’m competent to recognize such misrepresentation) is obvious. If I didn’t, you might convince yourself that you actually did learn such and such theory from some time on a google engine, with the tragic result that you might never actually read the books you’d need to read in order to get a full understanding.

 

[Ella]

Well, that’s your claim, but you don’t really know anything about the philosophy of time. If I wrote an entire treatise here for you to read, you might or might not be up to speed on the debate. I’m sorry to put it this way, but this smacks of your claims about training in formal logic. It’s obvious from these comments that you have almost no grounding in the philosophical question here. It’s completely wrong.

Translation:

   Quote:
   	 		 			 				  					Originally Posted by **pro_universal** 					 				
  			 *I can't prove you wrong. So I'll just do what I always do, and try to besmirch your reputation by claiming you don't know what you're talking about instead of debating your arguments.*

I’m glad I’m not the only one who notices this. Pro does it all the time.

Irregardless of Pro’s lack of edification from your posts, Mr. Ex, I find your arguments very educational.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The point was that the “threeness” is only in words and perception. That’s a fact that’s fatal to any analogy to the trinity right there. The teaching isn’t “God appears to be three but really he could be something else, just like time.”

But it’s not just words in perception pro.

It’s a physical reality that when we look to the stars at night we are actually gazing into the physical past that happened billions of years ago.

In addition to this, when objects are accellerated to nearly the speed of light, this physically alters how the object experiences time itself. For example, if one of two twin brothers undertakes a long space journey with a high-speed rocket at almost the speed of light while the other twin remains on Earth, the twin who has travelled at nearly the speed of light would actually be physically younger when he returns to Earth.

Likewise, since the future hasn’t happened yet, we can’t know for sure what will happen until the future actually happens.

The entire basis of our logic assumes that time happens in these stages-- and logic does break down if time is not experienced in this way. In fact, all laws of physics break down at the singularity.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You cited philosophies of time to try and prove the point. But those philosophies shatter any simple notion of “time as past, present, and future” threeness.

Time is currently one of the few fundamental quantities. These are quantities which cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental than what is presently known. Thus, similar to definition of other fundamental quantities (like space and mass), time is defined via measurement.

pro:

No, they aren’t. The conditionals in each syllogism are entirely your creation.

And your own statements about God are not?

pro:

I’m sorry, but you’ve misrepresented some fields so badly that there’s no point in giving a long explanation to show it. When you have done that, I’ll point it out and leave it to your coursework to remedy the deficiency. I might have had more patience for this if you hadn’t spent pages claiming to have some experience with formal logic, all the while posting statements that made it obvious you had no idea (the whole “range of values” thing, remember?).

But we do have to examine our statements according to a range of values pro. Without context, there’s really nothing being stated at all and all that we’re doing is verifying what we already believe.

And you’re doing the same thing the rest of us are doing. There’s no diference.

pro:

Uh, okay, where were all the symbols and notation and numbered lines with cited rules of inference? I must have missed that. All I saw were a few syllogisms, which are the medieval version of modern logic.

Good. Since you consider this essentually useless, then you won’t mind me reviewing the rules for the proper construction of a syllogism here for later reference.

I said before that a syllogism must have exactly three terms.

For example, consider this syllogism:

All laws are made by scientists.

The commandment “thou shalt not lie” is a law.

Therefore, scientists made the law “thou shalt not lie”.

We both agree that this is an invalid syllogism, correct?

More specifically, we both agree the term law is unclear-- because it can refer to a legislative law or another law, such as the laws of science.

As a result, this law actually has four terms instead of merely three-- and is invalid, correct?

 

[pro_universal]

Thus, similar to definition of other fundamental quantities (like space and mass), time is defined via measurement.

Alright…how does this relate to “logic” generally? Want to explain how this discussion has any bearing whatsoever on presenting a logical analysis of the relationship between words?

And your own statements about God are not?

They most certainly are my creation. But they’re also logically consistent.

But we do have to examine our statements according to a range of values pro.

But you missed the point about what this phrase means in the context of logic. It means “across a range of true/false values” to judge whether or not the argument is valid.

Since you consider this essentually useless, then you won’t mind me reviewing the rules for the proper construction of a syllogism here for later reference.

Reviewing the rules for a syllogism in a discussion about logical analysis is like reviewing humorology as a starting point for modern medicine. I do not understand why you are fixated on the syllogism, given that it has very little to offer here.

We both agree that this is an invalid syllogism, correct?

Actually no. That syllogism is perfectly valid. What it is not is sound.

As a result, this law actually has four terms instead of merely three-- and is invalid, correct?

No. That’s not what makes an argument invalid, and the presence of other terms in the universe that could be substituted doesn’t make an argument invalid. How you control and define the terms in constructing the argument is what matters.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Alright…how does this relate to “logic” generally? Want to explain how this discussion has any bearing whatsoever on presenting a logical analysis of the relationship between words?

Because the logical analysis breaks down when temporal restrictions are removed. Without these underlying distinctions, the entire premise of what is considered logical breaks down into the absurd statements like…

“Hey, Dad. Can I borrow the Time machine tonight?”

“Sure son. Just be sure you have it back before you leave.”

Not only does logic depend upon this structured relationship, the very nature of our language is built around around incorporating this time-stream experience of past, present, and future in very precise ways that enable logic to be validated when these rules are followed.
John 1:1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In addition to this, all laws of physics break down at the singularity-- that is, at time zero. I think I can dig up more than a few scientists, such as Einstein or Hawking for example, who would agree with me on this point too.

pro_universal:

They most certainly are my creation. But they’re also logically consistent.

No they’re not.

You’ve said that God can do any thing except sin because anything God does is good-- and then you make the claim that God can still do any thing even though you admit there are things that God, by his very nature, cannot do.

So you are saying that God can do any thing.

You are also saying that God cannot sin by claming that whatever God does is good.

And you are also saying that, since whatever God does is good, this somehow proves that God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing.

pro:

But you missed the point about what this phrase means in the context of logic. It means “across a range of true/false values” to judge whether or not the argument is valid.

When did I miss that?

Did I miss this when I contrasted your statements along the range of true/false values you proposed, and displayed a logical contradiction in your thinking, such as God not being able to do some thing actually means that God can do any thing according to your own words?

pro:

Reviewing the rules for a syllogism in a discussion about logical analysis is like reviewing humorology as a starting point for modern medicine. I do not understand why you are fixated on the syllogism, given that it has very little to offer here.

Logic was dominated by syllogistic reasoning until the 19th century. Modifications were incorporated to deal with disjunctive (“A or B”) and condititional (“if A then B”) statements. Kant himself famously claimed that logic was the one completed science, and that Aristotle had more or less discovered everything about it there was to know.

This opinion actually stood unchallenged until Frege invented first-order logic. Still, it was cumbersome and very limited in its ability to reveal the logical structure of complex sentences.

For example, it was unable to express the claim that the real line is a dense order.

In the late 19th century, Peirce’s discovery of second order logic revolutionized the field and the Aristotelian system has since been left to introductory material and historical study.

Consequently, the reason why I’ve been starting on the introductory level is because we are leading into modern logic.

We are leading into modern logic, are we not?

Doesn’t formal logic fit in here somewhere?

pro:

Actually no. That syllogism is perfectly valid. What it is not is sound.

Morton L. Schagrin:

There are other rules for constructing valid syllogisms. (1) The syllogism must have exactly three terms. For example, consider this invalid syllogism: “All laws are made by Congress. v=at is a law of falling bodies. Therefore, Congress made v=at.” The term law is unclear. It can refer to a physical law, such as the law of falling bodies, or to a legisltaive law. As a result, this syllogism has four terms instead of three-- and is invalid.

pro:

No. That’s not what makes an argument invalid, and the presence of other terms in the universe that could be substituted doesn’t make an argument invalid. How you control and define the terms in constructing the argument is what matters.

No. This syllogism is invalid because it has four terms instead of three. And if you disagree with me on this, then you can go and argue with Morton L. Schagrin about this.

I think he knows this stuff better than you do.

Would you like to hear some more rules for constructing a valid syllogism?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes. In fact I said that explicitly more than three times in this thread.

Then why are you insisting that the Trinitarian concept of God is thoroughly inconsistant and hopelessly illogical?

If you grasp that you “understand” God to be non-Triune, then you have to also realize that your own inability to perceive God as Triune may simply be just a limit of your own understanding too.

pro:

Then you are wasting your time, because there is no “threeness” in the mechanics of time. This is just shocking, that you claim here to say you’re talking about “the mechanics behind the appearance”, and then you go on to say:
Mr. Ex:

Time is experienced by us

as past, present, and future.

Experienced by us=appearance.

And appearance = image too.

Consequently, Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

pro:

So says you, but that’s an incoherent doctrine if you flesh it out.

Actually, all doctrines about God are incorrent until you flesh them out. Conversely, Jesus was God fleshing himself out for all of humanity to see.
John 1:14:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

pro:

The physical mechanics are not the problem. The logical mechanics are the problem.

No. The problem is that all people experience time in past, present and future perspectives even though we don’t understand the physical mechanics of how time could happen this way. The fact that time is experienced in past, present, and future is not negated by the fact that we don’t understand the physical mechanics of how time works.

Similarly, God experiences all of his creation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit even though we don’t understand the physical mechanics of how God could encounter us in these three distinct persons. The revelation that God experiences his creation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not negated by the fact that we don’t understand the physical mechanics of how God works.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro:

Okay, so what is your argument? Are you abandoning the claim that the trinity is logical, or are you not?

No. I’m saying that the Trinity is logical to the degree that we can understand it according to our human finite logic. But if people are claiming that they understand the physical mechanics of exactly how God works this way, they are wrong.

I’ve never claimed that I fully understood the physical mechanics of exactly how God works this way. No one does. But, then again, I don’t fully understand how time could work in such a paradoxical way either. No one understands this either. Either way, it doesn’t stop me from grasping that both time and God works in triune.

pro:

It’s weird…on the one hand, you’re desperate to show that it is a logical teaching. And on the other, you’re telling me that no “human” logic will grasp it. So which is it?

It’s neither.

More to the point, it’s a reminder that the creation itself is weird upon closer examination.

To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment.

Consequently, if we don’t even fully understand what’s going in God’s creation, then how can we dare claim to fully understand God?

We can use the rules of logic to test the claims about God only insofar as God has revealed his own traits to us. But if we step beyond this point, we’ve strayed past what he himself has truly revealed about himself and fallen into the things which we have assumed must be true about him.

pro:

I understand the trinity just fine. That’s why I recognize a bad analogy to it immediately.

But you don’t understand the Trinity. Because if you did understand the Trinity, then you would also realize that the Trinity is logical to the degree that we can understand it according to our human finite logic.

pro:

Okay, if an analogy is the only defense you have, and not a logical explanation of the teaching…what’s the natural conclusion there?

Can you point to me any kind of logical analysis that doesn’t work by analogy?

pro:

That it’s logical but you just can’t show that without talking about “the majest of time”?

I think around 2,500 years of philosophy beautifully illustrates the majesty of time. Aside from God, and perhaps the emotion of love, I can think of nothing else which has so inspired humanity to delve into the most profound aspects of God’s creation.

pro:

Here’s that tension again. I’m claiming that the trinity is not a logical teaching. If you want to believe it out of faith, fine, but it’s not logically consistent.

But the Trinity is logically consistent to the degree that we can understand it according to our human finite logic.

pro:

Which is it? Are you saying that it requires faith to make sense, or are you saying that it’s logical of its own accord?

Neither.

I’m saying that the Trinity is logically consistent to the degree that we can understand it according to our human finite logic, just like time, gravity, quantum foam, the duality of light and all the other aspects of our creation that we regularly expereince everyday without questioning their existence due our inability to fully understand them.

pro:

I honestly do not mean to insult you, but I have to make it clear to you that your misrepresentation of a philosophical point or some field of study (where I’m competent to recognize such misrepresentation) is obvious. If I didn’t, you might convince yourself that you actually did learn such and such theory from some time on a google engine, with the tragic result that you might never actually read the books you’d need to read in order to get a full understanding.

Thank you.

Now let’s get back to debating the ideas instead of the people who hold the ideas, shall we?

Can I point out a few more rules for syllogisms before we move along to the more modern aspects of logic?

 

[pro_universal]

Because the logical analysis breaks down when temporal restrictions are removed

Okay, this whole line of reasoning is specious, founded on ill understanding of the science and philosophy, and to boot, totally irrelevant to a logical analysis of the trinity.

Whether or not you do or do not understand time, the methods you will use to analyze statements about the trinity are going to be the same.

You’ve said that God can do any thing except sin because anything God does is good-- and then you make the claim that God can still do any thing even though you admit there are things that God, by his very nature, cannot do.

No, I did not. I made the claim that God can do any thing.

I further defined “good [ie, not sin]” as “anything God does.”

So by definition, there is no such thing as a “sin that God does.” Hence, there is nothing in the universe of things that God cannot do.

Consequently, the reason why I’ve been starting on the introductory level is because we are leading into modern logic.

We are leading into modern logic, are we not?

Okay, if you know this, why are we still “leading into modern logic” when I’ve made it abundantly clear that the primitive methods are not relevant to this discussion?

If you know how to do formal logic (ie, the way it’s done today), why are you wasting space with googled comments on the historical development of the subject?

No. This syllogism is invalid because it has four terms instead of three. And if you disagree with me on this, then you can go and argue with Morton L. Schagrin about this.

I’m not sure you understand what “invalid” means in the context of “modern logic” or whatever you want to term to best currently available methods of logical anaylsis.

Syllogisms have nothing to offer us in this discussion. They are a medieval tool used by people who weren’t very good at logic; now we’re much better off, and with all your training in formal logic, it would’ve taken you less than ten minutes to symbolize and show the claimed contradictions in my claims about God.

 

[pro_universal]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

No. I’m saying that the Trinity is logical to the degree that we can understand it according to our human finite logic. But if people are claiming that they understand the physical mechanics of exactly how God works this way, they are wrong.

Okay, so you’re saying it’s possible that God is in his true nature not a trinity, right? After all, since we don’t understand the mechanics, it’s possible that our perception is completely wrong.

No one does. But, then again, I don’t fully understand how time could work in such a paradoxical way either. No one understands this either. Either way, it doesn’t stop me from grasping that both time and God works in triune.

Your argument here appears to be: “since theories of time yield contradictions, and the trinity is contradictory, then I can believe in both and be happy.”

Maybe so, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a contradictory teaching.

Consequently, if we don’t even fully understand what’s going in God’s creation, then how can we dare claim to fully understand God?

Who’s claiming to fully understand God? Huh?

We can use the rules of logic to test the claims about God only insofar as God has revealed his own traits to us.

That’s exactly what I’m doing. The revelations that build a trinity are not logically consistent.

Can you point to me any kind of logical analysis that doesn’t work by analogy?

Every kind. There is no such thing as a logical analysis of statements that works by analogy.

But the Trinity is logically consistent to the degree that we can understand it according to our human finite logic.

No, it’s not. See my analysis of the athanasian creed. Analogies won’t undo the logic there.

Can I point out a few more rules for syllogisms before we move along to the more modern aspects of logic?

Why are you stuck on the syllogism here? I’m confused by your fascination with this. It has absolutely zero to offer us on this point. It’s like insisting on having a shaman look over a sick patient before a real doctor diagnoses the illness.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Okay, this whole line of reasoning is specious, founded on ill understanding of the science and philosophy, and to boot, totally irrelevant to a logical analysis of the trinity.

Whether or not you do or do not understand time, the methods you will use to analyze statements about the trinity are going to be the same.

If that’s true, then your whole line of reasoning on the ‘oneness of God’ is likewise specious, founded on ill understanding of the science and philosophy, and to boot, totally irrelevant to a logical analysis of God.

The reason why you believe in the oneness of God is because you consider it more reasonable to believe in the oneness of God. In other words, it’s an assumption that you’ve made. As such, you’re just using logic to validate what you already consider to be true irregardless of and independant of anything which can be solidly verified.

Whether or not you do or do not understand God, the methods you will use to analyze statements about oneness of God are going to be the same.

pro:

No, I did not. I made the claim that God can do any thing.

I further defined “good [ie, not sin]” as “anything God does.”

So by definition, there is no such thing as a “sin that God does.” Hence, there is nothing in the universe of things that God cannot do.

Ahhh…I see…nothing “in the universe of things” that God cannot do.

Pro, if you say God cannot do some thing, then you are saying God cannot do any thing.

More specifically, you’re either saying that a) God can do any thing because God cannot do any thing or that b) God cannot do any thing because God can do any thing.

:whacky:

pro:

Okay, if you know this, why are we still “leading into modern logic” when I’ve made it abundantly clear that the primitive methods are not relevant to this discussion?

But they are relevant.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s no doubt that modern logic extends far beyond the work of Aristotle. Modern logicians have developed theories and techniques to deal with deductive arguments other than categorical syllogisms.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the mathematicians George Boole and Alfred North Whitehead and the philosopher Bertrand Russel. They’ve used mathematical methods, as well as techniques that involve the symbols you’re asking me to employ.

Logic is used today mainly to test the validity of arguments. It is also used when working with such devices as computers and electrical switching circuits too.

pro:

If you know how to do formal logic (ie, the way it’s done today), why are you wasting space with googled comments on the historical development of the subject?

Because we need to start with the basics before we can get to the advanced.

Consequently, I don’t think you actually do understand the basics-- which is leading to errors in your thinking when you come to the advanced.

In fact, I’m now positive that you don’t understand the basics.

When you said here, “No. That syllogism is perfectly valid. What it is not is sound.”, you made an error.

Likewise, when you said here, “No. That’s not what makes an argument invalid, and the presence of other terms in the universe that could be substituted doesn’t make an argument invalid. How you control and define the terms in constructing the argument is what matters.”, you continued in this error.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

In the example I gave, how you control and define the terms in constructing the argument has nothing to do with whether it’s invalid or not. This syllogism is invalid because it has four terms instead of three.

Consequently, when you have to interject that “all-powerful” means “having the power to do any thing”, and then have to likewise interject that “good” means “anything God does”, you’ve admitted that your terms are very unclear and need to be defined further.

The terms ‘all-powerful’ and ‘good’ are initially unclear because they can refer any number of things. As a result, your statements have many overlapping meanings which are not explicitly clear solely from your own statements.

This is why I said this before…
Mr. Ex:

Claiming that God is all-powerful is contradictory.
If there is anyway in which God is not all-powerful, then this statement is false.
It is explicit on the point: God is all-powerful.
Claiming that God is the most powerful is not contradictory.

pro:

I’m not sure you understand what “invalid” means in the context of “modern logic” or whatever you want to term to best currently available methods of logical anaylsis.

Is there any other definition for “invalid” that you are aware of?

pro:

Syllogisms have nothing to offer us in this discussion. They are a medieval tool used by people who weren’t very good at logic; now we’re much better off, and with all your training in formal logic, it would’ve taken you less than ten minutes to symbolize and show the claimed contradictions in my claims about God.

But if you don’t understand the basic workings of a syllogism, then why should I take your word for it that you understand formal logic.

By the way, I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that I have ‘training’ in formal logic. I’ve never claimed to have training in formal logic. My studies were more casual.

Back when I was around 20 I would often go to Mount A university and read up on metaphysics. During this time, I did read up on formal logic as well and spent some time practicing the sentences/symbols involved. It was more of a curiousity for several months than anything else-- and since that time I’ve been primarilly considered with questions regarding God himself. And, like I said, it’s been years since that time.

Nonetheless, I have read up on these things. I am reading more now too. I know more than a few things about the usage of logic, And I do find your claims in this thread to be unwarranted. That’s why I’m starting with the very basics.

And, by the way, if you were really interested in teaching me something about formal logic (like I asked you to do), you would take the time to explain your position more carefully-- instead of making the insulting comments that you often make.

Since you’ve injected many personal comments about me, comments that were highly insulting, I think I’ll just politely retort back a few observations that I’ve made about you.

The fact that you don’t take the time to explain your position more carefully seem to indicate that you’re more interested “proving other people wrong” than teaching anything. And if you need to make yourself feel better by going on the internet and acting this way, then I suspect your lack of confidence in the real world must be vast.

If you want to prove your point, then show us what you mean and stop making the personal attacks on us.

I’ve been very patient with you pro despite your lack of charity. But from here on in, anymore personal attacks that you make against me will be reported.

Do I make myself clear?