pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[pro_universal]

. 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.

Okay, here’s something basic about logic:

It doesn’t create content. You can’t do logic unless you have premises, which means you have to get the premises from somewhere. You’re making this declaration as if this is a misuse of logic. The fact is, what you just declared is the only possible way to ever employ logic.

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.

Uh, no, that’s not what I’m saying. It’s hard to read your rewrite of what I said because it’s convoluted.

What I said was pretty simple:

God can do any thing. “sin done by God” is not a thing, but rather, a combination of terms that yields absolutely no meaning, because the very terms contradict themselves. Hence, the phrase “sin done by God” doesn’t represent a thing.

So, there is no thing that God cannot do.

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.

That’s what I’ve been talking about the entire time. Why would you use bad tools when there are better ones readily available?

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.

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

Okay, this is pretty basic also. Valid=the argument computes.

Invalid=does not compute.

Testing this is where your “range of values” comes in.

Sound=premises are true.

A valid argument functions so that your conclusion is possible given the premises.

An unsound one has bad premises.

 

[pro_universal]

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.

Okay, but that’s not because of the logic of the statements. That’s because you want to know more.

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.

I do. The problem is that you don’t, which is the only explanation I can see for you not being able to see that I understand it.

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.

Take it easy friend. We’ve both been making light-hearted jabs at each other’s arguments this entire thread.

Do I make myself clear?

You do. I think you’re frustrated that your arguments are difficult to formulate and taking time, and now you’re upset that I make light of them (like you do mine.) I don’t take it personally and neither should you.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Okay, here’s something basic about logic:

It doesn’t create content. You can’t do logic unless you have premises, which means you have to get the premises from somewhere. You’re making this declaration as if this is a misuse of logic. The fact is, what you just declared is the only possible way to ever employ logic.

But it does create context. And you do have to be able to examine your statements within the context of how the relate to each other. They’re not just void statements. And if you use terms that can have multiple meanings, and if these meanings are not carefully defined from the beginning, then the statements are invalid.

It’s not that they’re not logically sound. They may be and they may not be logically sound. But the statements, as given, must be able to be examined within their own context as they relate to each other.

I’m not making this up.

pro:

Uh, no, that’s not what I’m saying. It’s hard to read your rewrite of what I said because it’s convoluted.

What I said was pretty simple:

God can do any thing. “sin done by God” is not a thing, but rather, a combination of terms that yields absolutely no meaning, because the very terms contradict themselves. Hence, the phrase “sin done by God” doesn’t represent a thing.

So, there is no thing that God cannot do.

But that’s not how logic works.

That’s blatently side-stepping the whole issue that there are things that God cannot do in order to conclude that God can do any thing.

I can determine that your formula is invalid by comparing it with another formula that has the same form and yeilds a false conclusion. So, for example, if I take your statement above and apply it to man giving birth, I could state the following:

Man can do any thing. “man giving birth” is not a thing, but rather, a combination of terms that yields absolutely no meaning, because the very terms contradict themselves. Hence, the phrase “man gives birth” doesn’t represent a thing.

But man giving birth does represent a thing. More specifically, it represents a thing that man cannot do. Man cannot give birth.

I already covered this before…

Review Begins Here:

A syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion, correct?

In fact, a ‘categorical syllogism’ is one in which every statement has one of the following forms:

1. All A are B
2. No A are B
3. Some A are B
4. Some A are not B

In these forms above, the letters A and B are basically terms that represent various classes of things. These things could include things such as rocks, ameobae, snails, and God himself

The following argument is, as far I understand, is a good example of a valid categorical syllogism:

All mammals are warm-blooded.
All humans are mammals.
Therefore, all humans are warm-blooded.

As I pointed out before, the form of this syllogism is:

“All A are B. All C are A. Therefore, all C are B.”

But let’s go one step further with this.
Morton L. Schagrin:

The following categorical syllogism is invalid:

No stars are planets.

Some satellites are not planets.

Therefore, some satellites are not stars.

This syllogism has the following form:

No A are B. Some C are not B. Therefore, some C are not A.

We can determine that this syllogism is invalid by comparing it with another syllogism that has the same form and yeilds a false conclusion.

Such a syllogism would be:

No precious stones cheap things (true).

Some diamonds are not cheap things (true).

Therefore some diamonds are not precious stones (false).

This syllogism fails to meet the requirement that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. Therefore, the syllogism must be invalid.

Consequently, your statement that there is no thing that God cannot do is invalidated by the fact that you admit that there are things that God cannot do.

 

[tequilamac]

But it does create context. And you do have to be able to examine your statements within the context of how the relate to each other. They’re not just void statements. And if you use terms that can have multiple meanings, and if these meanings are not carefully defined from the beginning, then the statements are invalid.

It’s not that they’re not logically sound. They may be and they may not be logically sound. But the statements, as given, must be able to be examined within their own context as they relate to each other.

I’m not making this up.

But that’s not how logic works.

That’s blatently side-stepping the whole issue that there are things that God cannot do in order to conclude that God can do any thing.

I can determine that your formula is invalid by comparing it with another formula that has the same form and yeilds a false conclusion. So, for example, if I take your statement above and apply it to man giving birth, I could state the following:

But man giving birth does represent a thing. More specifically, it represents a thing that man cannot do. Man cannot give birth.

I already covered this before…

As I pointed out before, the form of this syllogism is:

But let’s go one step further with this.

Consequently, your statement that there is no thing that God cannot do is invalidated by the fact that you admit that there are things that God cannot do.

Logic? The Summa

Objection 1. It seems that no created intellect can see the essence of God. For Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. in Joan.) commenting on Jn. 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time,” says: “Not prophets only, but neither angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable?” Dionysius also says (Div. Nom. i), speaking of God: “Neither is there sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor knowledge of Him.”

Objection 2. Further, everything infinite, as such, is unknown. But God is infinite, as was shown above (7, 1). Therefore in Himself He is unknown.

Objection 3. Further, the created intellect knows only existing things. For what falls first under the apprehension of the intellect is being. Now God is not something existing; but He is rather super-existence, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore God is not intelligible; but above all intellect.

Objection 4. Further, there must be some proportion between the knower and the known, since the known is the perfection of the knower. But no proportion exists between the created intellect and God; for there is an infinite distance between them. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God.

On the contrary, It is written: “We shall see Him as He is” (1 John 2:2).

I answer that, Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light.

Therefore some who considered this, held that no created intellect can see the essence of God. This opinion, however, is not tenable. For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in something else beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in that which is the principle of its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it attains to its principle. Further the same opinion is also against reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men. But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void.

Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God.

 

[tequilamac]

Whether the power of God is infinite. Logic. Again from the Summa

Objection 1. It seems that the power of God is not infinite. For everything that is infinite is imperfect according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 6). But the power of God is far from imperfect. Therefore it is not infinite.

Objection 2. Further, every power is made known by its effect; otherwise it would be ineffectual. If, then, the power of God were infinite, it could produce an infinite effect, but this is impossible.

Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 79) that if the power of any corporeal thing were infinite, it would cause instantaneous movement. God, however, does not cause instantaneous movement, but moves the spiritual creature in time, and the corporeal creature in place and time, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. 20,22,23). Therefore, His power is not infinite.

On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii), that “God’s power is immeasurable. He is the living mighty one.” Now everything that is immeasurable is infinite. Therefore the power of God is infinite.

I answer that, As stated above (1), active power exists in God according to the measure in which He is actual. Now His existence is infinite, inasmuch as it is not limited by anything that receives it, as is clear from what has been said, when we discussed the infinity of the divine essence (7, 1). Wherefore, it is necessary that the active power in God should be infinite. For in every agent is it found that the more perfectly an agent has the form by which it acts the greater its power to act. For instance, the hotter a thing is, the greater the power has it to give heat; and it would have infinite power to give heat, were its own heat infinite. Whence, since the divine essence, through which God acts, is infinite, as was shown above (7, 1) it follows that His power likewise is infinite.

 

[pro_universal]

It’s not that they’re not logically sound. They may be and they may not be logically sound. But the statements, as given, must be able to be examined within their own context as they relate to each other.

Right…and how you test the relationship is logic. That’s what it does.

That’s blatently side-stepping the whole issue that there are things that God cannot do in order to conclude that God can do any thing.

I can determine that your formula is invalid by comparing it with another formula that has the same form and yeilds a false conclusion. So, for example, if I take your statement above and apply it to man giving birth, I could state the following:

This is a good opportunity to point out the folly of comparison. You made several basic errors that I’ll point out below.

But man giving birth does represent a thing. More specifically, it represents a thing that man cannot do. Man cannot give birth.

Birth, by itself, is a cognizable idea. There’s a thing that you don’t need to refer to any gender to describe, you can do it purely with biological terms (or you can use gender if you want, but that’s fine…the definition itself is something other than “what man does not do”.)

That’s why it’s a thing.

Sin and good, in my universe of terms, are not such tangible things…they are evaluative terms defined by reference to other things. Hence, it’s not like “there is some thing sin, and on top of it, sin is something God wouldn’t do.”

Sin is by definition only that which God does not will.

Good, by definition, is only that which God does will.

You may have your own ideas, but this is how I’ve defined the terms, and I think it’s a sound one to boot (though this has no bearing on whether or not there’s a logical set of terms here).

So unlike birth, or other analogous situations you might want to use, there is absolutely zero content to these terms besides the respective will (or not will) of God. Your failure to grasp that repeated point is what has led you to a silly and inaccurate analogy, and also seems to be sympomatic of a deeper inability to grasp what it is to say that something is logical.

Consequently, your statement that there is no thing that God cannot do is invalidated by the fact that you admit that there are things that God cannot do.

See above. If you move beyond analogy and the primitive syllogisms and actually apply some formal logic, you’ll be able to see for yourself what I’m saying.

 

[tequilamac]

But it does create context. And you do have to be able to examine your statements within the context of how the relate to each other. They’re not just void statements. And if you use terms that can have multiple meanings, and if these meanings are not carefully defined from the beginning, then the statements are invalid.

It’s not that they’re not logically sound. They may be and they may not be logically sound. But the statements, as given, must be able to be examined within their own context as they relate to each other.

I’m not making this up.

But that’s not how logic works.

That’s blatently side-stepping the whole issue that there are things that God cannot do in order to conclude that God can do any thing.

I can determine that your formula is invalid by comparing it with another formula that has the same form and yeilds a false conclusion. So, for example, if I take your statement above and apply it to man giving birth, I could state the following:

But man giving birth does represent a thing. More specifically, it represents a thing that man cannot do. Man cannot give birth.

I already covered this before…

As I pointed out before, the form of this syllogism is:

But let’s go one step further with this.

Consequently, your statement that there is no thing that God cannot do is invalidated by the fact that you admit that there are things that God cannot do.

Whether God can do what He does not do. From the Summa

Objection 1. It seems that God cannot do other than what He does. For God cannot do what He has not foreknown and pre-ordained that He would do. But He neither foreknew nor pre-ordained that He would do anything except what He does. Therefore He cannot do except what He does.

Objection 2. Further, God can only do what ought to be done and what is right to be done. But God is not bound to do what He does not; nor is it right that He should do what He does not. Therefore He cannot do except what He does.

Objection 3. Further, God cannot do anything that is not good and befitting creation. But it is not good for creatures nor befitting them to be otherwise than as they are. Therefore God cannot do except what He does.

On the contrary, It is said: “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). But He neither asked for them, nor did His Father show them to refute the Jews. Therefore God can do what He does not.

I answer that, In this matter certain persons erred in two ways. Some laid it down that God acts from natural necessity in such way that as from the action of nature nothing else can happen beyond what actually takes place–as, for instance, from the seed of man, a man must come, and from that of an olive, an olive; so from the divine operation there could not result other things, nor another order of things, than that which now is. But we showed above (19, 3) that God does not act from natural necessity, but that His will is the cause of all things; nor is that will naturally and from any necessity determined to those things. Whence in no way at all is the present course of events produced by God from any necessity, so that other things could not happen. Others, however, said that the divine power is restricted to this present course of events through the order of the divine wisdom and justice without which God does nothing. But since the power of God, which is His essence, is nothing else but His wisdom, it can indeed be fittingly said that there is nothing in the divine power which is not in the order of the divine wisdom; for the divine wisdom includes the whole potency of the divine power. Yet the order placed in creation by divine wisdom, in which order the notion of His justice consists, as said above (21, 2), is not so adequate to the divine wisdom that the divine wisdom should be restricted to this present order of things. Now it is clear that the whole idea of order which a wise man puts into things made by him is taken from their end. So, when the end is proportionate to the things made for that end, the wisdom of the maker is restricted to some definite order. But the divine goodness is an end exceeding beyond all proportion things created. Whence the divine wisdom is not so restricted to any particular order that no other course of events could happen. **Wherefore we must simply say that God can do other things than those He has done. **

 

[pro_universal]

tequilamac,

Leaving the trinity aside (where I think St. Aquinas’s arguments are insufficient, and he seems to admit so himself), there is no question that his work in refuting attacks on monotheism and the all powerful God are second to none.

If our aim is to convince people that the basic idea of God, all good, and all powerful, makes sense, Aquinas has some of the most powerful arguments anyone will ever come up with.

People who believe in God, from whatever faith, will have a lot to learn from reading his work.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Whether God can do what He does not do. From the Summa

Objection 1. It seems that God cannot do other than what He does. For God cannot do what He has not foreknown and pre-ordained that He would do. But He neither foreknew nor pre-ordained that He would do anything except what He does. Therefore He cannot do except what He does.

Objection 2. Further, God can only do what ought to be done and what is right to be done. But God is not bound to do what He does not; nor is it right that He should do what He does not. Therefore He cannot do except what He does.

Objection 3. Further, God cannot do anything that is not good and befitting creation. But it is not good for creatures nor befitting them to be otherwise than as they are. Therefore God cannot do except what He does.

On the contrary, It is said: “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). But He neither asked for them, nor did His Father show them to refute the Jews. Therefore God can do what He does not.

I answer that, In this matter certain persons erred in two ways. Some laid it down that God acts from natural necessity in such way that as from the action of nature nothing else can happen beyond what actually takes place–as, for instance, from the seed of man, a man must come, and from that of an olive, an olive; so from the divine operation there could not result other things, nor another order of things, than that which now is. But we showed above (19, 3) that God does not act from natural necessity, but that His will is the cause of all things; nor is that will naturally and from any necessity determined to those things. Whence in no way at all is the present course of events produced by God from any necessity, so that other things could not happen. Others, however, said that the divine power is restricted to this present course of events through the order of the divine wisdom and justice without which God does nothing. But since the power of God, which is His essence, is nothing else but His wisdom, it can indeed be fittingly said that there is nothing in the divine power which is not in the order of the divine wisdom; for the divine wisdom includes the whole potency of the divine power. Yet the order placed in creation by divine wisdom, in which order the notion of His justice consists, as said above (21, 2), is not so adequate to the divine wisdom that the divine wisdom should be restricted to this present order of things. Now it is clear that the whole idea of order which a wise man puts into things made by him is taken from their end. So, when the end is proportionate to the things made for that end, the wisdom of the maker is restricted to some definite order. But the divine goodness is an end exceeding beyond all proportion things created. Whence the divine wisdom is not so restricted to any particular order that no other course of events could happen. **Wherefore we must simply say that God can do other things than those He has done. **

Even if he contradicts some of his own thoughts, St. Aquinas nonethless agrees with me on this.

Simply saying that God can do other things than those He has done does not mean that God can sin.

God cannot sin.

 

[tequilamac]

Even if he contradicts some of his own thoughts, St. Aquinas nonethless agrees with me on this.

Simply saying that God can do other things than those He has done does not mean that God can sin.

God cannot sin.

Well, I don’t know if pro universal is actually putting forth that God can sin. Where does pro say that? I am sure that pro is aware the God is all perfection and sin is at it’s minimum, imperfection. So it is relatively obvious that God cannot sin because perfection is not imperfect.

if we follow true logic rahter than arguing about what logic is the Summa tells us first:

“Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law.”

Then it tells us:
I answer that, As was shown above (1), sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, as stated above (1, 1), whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God’s reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says “word,” “deed,” or “desire”; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, “contrary to the eternal law.”

Since God is****** the eternal law, and he is perfection, it is reasonable to conclude that no God cannot sin. For if he did sin he would be acting against Himself in imperfection.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, I don’t know if pro universal is actually putting forth that God can sin. Where does pro say that? I am sure that pro is aware the God is all perfection and sin is at it’s minimum, imperfection. So it is relatively obvious that God cannot sin because perfection is not imperfect.

if we follow true logic rahter than arguing about what logic is the Summa tells us first:

“Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law.”

Then it tells us:
I answer that, As was shown above (1), sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, as stated above (1, 1), whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God’s reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says “word,” “deed,” or “desire”; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, “contrary to the eternal law.”

Since God is****** the eternal law, and he is perfection, it is reasonable to conclude that no God cannot sin. For if he did sin he would be acting against Himself in imperfection.

I’m not saying that pro actually believes that God can sin. Outside of his logical statements, pro’s made it very clear that he believes that God cannot sin. But it’s his wording of the statements that gives rise to the loophole that God can sin.

I’m trying to get him to understand this. If he makes the claim that God can do any thing, then he claims that God cannot sin, then he’s contradicting himself.

I’m making the claim that God cannot do any thing because God cannot sin. I’ve always held this view from the beginning. But it’s God’s inability to sin which makes him all-powerful-- and these are not contradictory statements.

In other words, God is not all-powerful because he can do any thing. The reason why God is all-powerful is because any thing he does is good.

That’s exactly what pro is trying to say too. But, when one examines his statements, he’s not doing a good job of saying this. In fact, using logic the way he does, he’s contradicting the very thing that he’s trying to explain to us.

 

[pro_universal]

In other words, *God is not all-powerful *because he can do any thing. The reason why God is all-powerful is because any thing he does is good.

This is a textbook example of a contradiction. I’ve bolded the affirmation, and italicized the negation, to show you exactly where you contradicted yourself.

You’re constructing a vision of “all powerful” that is easy to refute. This is a classic atheist argument against the all powerful God, and your refusal to understand the difference between a word like “sin” (ie, anything not the will of God; or take Aquinas’s…same reasoning employed there) and a word like “rock” (whose content is referential to something independent of a negation of something else.)

That’s exactly what pro is trying to say too. But, when one examines his statements, he’s not doing a good job of saying this. In fact, using logic the way he does, he’s contradicting the very thing that he’s trying to explain to us.

No, that’s not what I’m trying to say. You keep mischaracterizing my statements here and I’m not sure why.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Right…and how you test the relationship is logic. That’s what it does.

Yes. That’ exactly what it does.

pro:

This is a good opportunity to point out the folly of comparison. You made several basic errors that I’ll point out below.

sigh

pro:

Birth, by itself, is a cognizable idea.

Sin is a cognizable idea too.

pro:

There’s a thing that you don’t need to refer to any gender to describe…

Sin is a thing that you don’t need to refer to any gender to describe too.

pro:

you can do it purely with biological terms

Sin can be described with purely biological terms too.

(or you can use gender if you want, but that’s fine…the definition itself is something other than “what man does not do”.)

That’s why it’s a thing.

Yes. And sin is something too.

pro:

Sin and good, in my universe of terms, are not such tangible things…they are evaluative terms defined by reference to other things.

Does your universe include hell? Is hell good? Is hell made out of good things?

What about the devil? Is the devil good? Is the devil made out of good things?

What about the abyss that all those who are not saved are thrown into at the end time? Is the abyss good? Is the abyss made out of good things?

It seems to me that there are things that are made out of pure evil.

pro:

Hence, it’s not like “there is some thing sin, and on top of it, sin is something God wouldn’t do.”

I agree with you that sin is something God wouldn’t do. And you do agree with me on this whether you realize it or not.

pro:

Sin is by definition only that which God does not will.

I disagree. I think some things, such as fallen angels, are pure evil. They weren’t originally created that way. But their substance did indeed become transformed into pure evil when they rebelled against God.

pro:

Good, by definition, is only that which God does will.

But doesn’t God will all things?

pro:

You may have your own ideas, but this is how I’ve defined the terms, and I think it’s a sound one to boot (though this has no bearing on whether or not there’s a logical set of terms here).

That’s fine if that’s what you beleive. But don’t make the claim it’s logical. It’s not.

pro:

So unlike birth, or other analogous situations you might want to use, there is absolutely zero content to these terms besides the respective will (or not will) of God. Your failure to grasp that repeated point is what has led you to a silly and inaccurate analogy, and also seems to be sympomatic of a deeper inability to grasp what it is to say that something is logical.

And yet you say that God cannot sin. And I agree with you on this.

pro:

See above. If you move beyond analogy and the primitive syllogisms and actually apply some formal logic, you’ll be able to see for yourself what I’m saying.

Good. Then show me some formal logic-- cause I haven’t seen anything presented by your statements that haven’t contradicted themselves on closer examination yet.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is a textbook example of a contradiction. I’ve bolded the affirmation, and italicized the negation, to show you exactly where you contradicted yourself.

I think what you’ve bolded only proves that you don’t like the idea of God not being able to do some thing-- which sound very much like an Islamic thought to me.

By the way, what you ‘italicized’ kind of…um…dissapeared in with all the other ‘italicized’ text that was quoted.

Could you be a bit more specific?

pro:

You’re constructing a vision of “all powerful” that is easy to refute.

How so?

pro:

This is a classic atheist argument against the all powerful God…

That’s a strange claim to make since I’m not an atheist.

I actually believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Remember that Triune God that you claimed was inconsistent?

I believe in God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And, unlike you, I take pride in the fact that there are things that God cannot do. In fact, the fact that God cannot sin and is all-good is exactly what makes him…

All Powerful

pro:

…and your refusal to understand the difference between a word like “sin” (ie, anything not the will of God; or take Aquinas’s…same reasoning employed there) and a word like “rock” (whose content is referential to something independent of a negation of something else.)

I’m still listening. But I don’t see much difference yet. And you haven’t really explained it very clearly using logic yet either.

pro:

No, that’s not what I’m trying to say.

Then what exactly are you tryng to say?

pro:

You keep mischaracterizing my statements here and I’m not sure why.

I’m only using your own statements and comparing and contrasting them in a logical form.

Isn’t that the entire point of a debate-- to use someone own words within the context they provide in order to display an inconsistency that the person defending their ideas may not have thought of?

I’m not breaking any rules by doing this either by the way.

 

[pro_universal]

Sin is a cognizable idea too.

Not independent of God’s will it’s not.

Sin can be described with purely biological terms too.

??? Are you serious? Okay, try defining “sin” without using ANY terms that aren’t strictly biological.

Yes. And sin is something too.

Technically, it’s a negation of a thing, namely, God’s will.

Does your universe include hell? Is hell good? Is hell made out of good things?

If you need to go to this point, it’s obvious that you do not understand my argument.

If you studied religious philosophy, you should know that the standard Augustinian answer to this is: “No, hell is not a thing…it’s the opposite of existence”

It seems to me that there are things that are made out of pure evil.

That’s because you incessantly substitute your own ideas for mine. Maybe you don’t like it, but the fact is, this idea of “sin” as something other than “[not] God’s will” is your idea, and you’re right…given what you keep presuming to be sin, the idea of an all powerful God is incoherent. But it’s not necessary to define sin this way, and I don’t.

But doesn’t God will all things?

Yes. Hence, something that he doesn’t will is not a thing.

Good. Then show me some formal logic-- cause I haven’t seen anything presented by your statements that haven’t contradicted themselves on closer examination yet.

This is truly bizarre. The formal side of what i’m defining here is so simple, that it should take you only a minute to make the symbols. The problem is that you substitute your own ideas because you don’t like the way I define the terms…if you would refrain from doing that, you’d be able to consider my argument for what it is.

 

[pro_universal]

I think what you’ve bolded only proves that you don’t like the idea of God not being able to do some thing-- which sound very much like an Islamic thought to me.

Umm, I hate to break it to you, but God’s omnipotence is basic Christian teaching. That’s like, Christianity 101…

By the way, what you ‘italicized’ kind of…um…dissapeared in with all the other ‘italicized’ text that was quoted.

It was the “not” before the same phrase as bolded in the first sentence. That’s what a contradiction is.

Remember that Triune God that you claimed was inconsistent?

I believe in God-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And, unlike you, I take pride in the fact that there are things that God cannot do. In fact, the fact that God cannot sin and is all-good is exactly what makes him The Almighty.

Okay, so you have a limited God who is not all powerful. That is heresy, so I recommend you have a chat with your priest about this teaching before you pass it on to anyone else.

I’m only using your own statements and comparing and contrasting them in a logical form.

No, you’re not using my statements. You’re making up your own and then claiming that there’s a contradiction. Your views are certainly contradictory, though.

I’m not breaking any rules by doing this either by the way.

Inventing new terms means you made your own argument. It’s not mine anymore if you add to it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Umm, I hate to break it to you, but God’s omnipotence is basic Christian teaching. That’s like, Christianity 101…

Christianity 101 understands that God cannot sin.

pro:

It was the “not” before the same phrase as bolded in the first sentence. That’s what a contradiction is.

You’re claims for contradiction seem to blend in with your other words upon closer examination.

pro:

Okay, so you have a limited God who is not all powerful.

And you’re saying that I’m using the athiest’s arguments?

No. I have an all-good God who is powerful enough to create the heavens and the earth, sustain all things by his powerful Word, and rightly discern between good and evil in order to to justly reward all those who submit to God’s grace-- and allows others to damn themselves by rejecting God’s grace.

The Most High is not so powerful that he can contradict his own Word. God is limited by his own essense.

This is something Muslims need to understand.

pro:

That is heresy, so I recommend you have a chat with your priest about this teaching before you pass it on to anyone else.

I have. And he agrees with me by the way. So do many other Catholics.

Consequently, if you don’t understand this, then don’t actually understand Catholicism.

Then again, you can’t really say for sure whether the Scriptures are corrupted or not. Since you’re not able to clearly decide this matter, this too seems to indicate that you haven’t really examined Catholicism.

pro:

No, you’re not using my statements. You’re making up your own and then claiming that there’s a contradiction. Your views are certainly contradictory, though.

You said God can do any thing.
Then you said God cannot sin.
This means that God cannot do any thing.

That’s a contradicition.

pro:

Inventing new terms means you made your own argument. It’s not mine anymore if you add to it.

Can God sin or not?

Yes or no?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s what I’ve been talking about the entire time. Why would you use bad tools when there are better ones readily available?

Alfred North Whitehead actually agreed with you when he responded in part to questions like you noted above:
Alfred North Whitehead:

In the modern development of Logic, the traditional Aristotelian Logic takes its place as a simplification of the problem presented by the subject. In this there is an analogy to arithmetic of primitive tribes compared to modern mathematics.

Then again, Alfred North Whitehead also alluded to the idea that time was God’s way of keeping everything from happening at once too. This anonymous quote isn’t directly attributed to him. But his ideas strongly convey this concept nonetheless.

Some have answered your question as to why I would use ‘bad tools’ when there are ‘better ones’ readily available by simply asking if these newer tools are really that much better.

You also have to admit that since the rise of modern logic, more people have lost faith in God-- or, at least seriously questioned the supernatural’s existence since they believe it exists outside the scope of science. There is, in a sense, a certain detachment within modern logic that stems from its fixation on the separation of apodeixis (a deduction that produces knowledge) and episteme (the body of ideas that determine intellectually certain knowledge at any particular time).

Certainly, you must have noticed that it’s become more common for people to openly question God’s existence since the rise of modern logic, no?

Ockham’s razor seems to dominate most philosophical discusions these days.

Do you feel that Ockham’s razor applies to our discussions here?

I’m sure there’s at least a few atheists on this board who will explain that it does if you ask them. They may even explain to you that you’re using a form of this kind of parsimony when you state that the “oneness of God” is more logical than the “Triune God”.

The most simple answer to your question is that the syllogism is a perfect introductory starting point for logic.

But, since you asked, let’s get into some thoughts on modern logic.

I’ll get to this soon enough.

Yes. We’re coming to those ‘better tools’ pro. I wanted to see what you actually knew about the basics before we got to the more advanced things. In light of the claims you’ve made, I think it’s fair to do so.

pro:

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.

Yes. I know. Thats’ actually exactly what I said before.

Maybe I’'ve missed something. Did you forget to put quotes around my words?

 

[pro_universal]

Christianity 101 understands that God cannot sin.

Yes, by arguing that sin is not a thing. See Aquinas, See Augustine. To say that sin is a concrete thing, and that God can’t do it, is to say that God is limited.

And you’re saying that I’m using the athiest’s arguments?

Yes. The argument you are using is commonly used by atheists to “prove” that God can’t be all powerful yet all good.

The Most High is not so powerful that he can contradict his own Word. God is limited by his own essense.

In other words, you’re saying that God is not infinitely powerful. God is limited, according to you. That is heresy, which is something if you talk to your priest, you will understand.

Consequently, if you don’t understand this, then don’t actually understand Catholicism.

If you’re saying that God is limited, you are well outside basic Catholic theology.

You said God can do any thing.
Then you said God cannot sin.
This means that God cannot do any thing.

That’s a contradicition.

That’s a terrible argument. “God sin” is not a thing; it’s a nonsensical, contradictory phrase that doesn’t describe any thing that exists. Here’s why, in very, very simple terms:

sin=“not God”

“God sin”=“God [not God]”. See how that works? It doesn’t make any sense to even posit “sins committed by God.” They are not a “thing”, but rather, a confused jumble of contradictory terms, fueled by the illusion that because you can say something, there must be a thing to go with the words.

Can God sin or not?

Yes or no?

I’ve answered this probably ten times already.

NO. And that’s not a limit on God’s power to do all things, because sin committed by God is not a thing.

 

[pro_universal]

Certainly, you must have noticed that it’s become more common for people to openly question God’s existence since the rise of modern logic, no?

Modern science has done this also. That doesn’t mean that we were closer to the truth when we were rubbing salt into people’s brains to cure “demons” and theorizing that the earth had only three elements.

Do you feel that Ockham’s razor applies to our discussions here?

If I tried hard to think of a commonly mentioned, commonly misunderstood philosophical theory, I could not possibly come up with one that is more irrelevant to our discussion.

Yes. We’re coming to those ‘better tools’ pro. I wanted to see what you actually knew about the basics before we got to the more advanced things. In light of the claims you’ve made, I think it’s fair to do so.

Well, move on please!