pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[tequilamac]

I’m not debating ‘everyone else’. I’m only debating you and pro.

But I’m not debating non Catholics, lapsed Catholics, and faithful Catholics.

I’m only debating you and pro.

Your quotes don’t mean what you think they mean. It’s your explanation of their quotes which are displayed to be illogical.

No. I am debating you and pro. More specifically, I’m debating your’s and pro’s interpretation of what Aquinas and Augustine actually said.

Aquinas and Augustine are not saying what you are both claiming they are saying.

Then start discussing God and His nature and stop telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I do know what I’m taking about. I know exactly what I’m talking about-- God cannot sin.

The problem here is the very definiton for all-powerful that pro is using. And, to some extent, you are holding some weaker form of this this view too. Aquinas and Augustine never used it the way you both insist it must be used.

The way pro is using ‘all-powerful’ is the Muslim was of using it-- not the Catholic way of using it. I don’t know exactly which way you are using it. Your posts are not very clear on this matter in my opinion.

Either way, all-powerful does not mean God can do any thing. That’s how the world sees all-powerful. Muslims view God this way too. And it’s exactly this kind of argument that atheists use to ‘prove’ that God can’t be all powerful.

But all-powerful doesn’t mean that God can do any thing. All-powerful means God is all-good. This is how God sees all-powerful. This is how Catholics see this too.

If you are sincerely more interested in discussing God and His nature, then I can’t get much clearer than this.

Nonsense. All pwerful does not merely mean all good. Why cut God off at the knees? All powerful could also suggest that He created the universe full of material substances- in which case while He may have created it and saw it was good, it was due to more than just being good. Your interpretation is not representative of all Catholics. For instance, I am Catholic and can contemplate God being all powerful in several different senses than just “all good”. Yes He is all good, but He also all powerful in other lesser ways. I asked several Catholics after Mass this morning and they agree- to say God is all good to replace all powerful is cutting God off at the knees. A vote against your interpretation is not a vote against all Catholics.

Furthermore- if I cut and paste directly something Aquinas said, it does not become “my imterpretation.” Your first objection to what you called “my intepretation” was entirely a quote from Aquinas with nothing subtracted and nothing added. From this I can conclude that your interest is in being correct not in being aware.

Furthermore you have corrected everyone who has posted. why are you so intereted in fighting?

 

[tequilamac]

I’m not debating ‘everyone else’. I’m only debating you and pro.

But I’m not debating non Catholics, lapsed Catholics, and faithful Catholics.

I’m only debating you and pro.

Your quotes don’t mean what you think they mean. It’s your explanation of their quotes which are displayed to be illogical.

No. I am debating you and pro. More specifically, I’m debating your’s and pro’s interpretation of what Aquinas and Augustine actually said.

Aquinas and Augustine are not saying what you are both claiming they are saying.

Then start discussing God and His nature and stop telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I do know what I’m taking about. I know exactly what I’m talking about-- God cannot sin.

The problem here is the very definiton for all-powerful that pro is using. And, to some extent, you are holding some weaker form of this this view too. Aquinas and Augustine never used it the way you both insist it must be used.

The way pro is using ‘all-powerful’ is the Muslim was of using it-- not the Catholic way of using it. I don’t know exactly which way you are using it. Your posts are not very clear on this matter in my opinion.

Either way, all-powerful does not mean God can do any thing. That’s how the world sees all-powerful. Muslims view God this way too. And it’s exactly this kind of argument that atheists use to ‘prove’ that God can’t be all powerful.

But all-powerful doesn’t mean that God can do any thing. All-powerful means God is all-good. This is how God sees all-powerful. This is how Catholics see this too.

If you are sincerely more interested in discussing God and His nature, then I can’t get much clearer than this.

oh wow. you are so stuck. Why do you keep repeating God cannot sin? Who said He could? you are the one who came the closest to claiming God could create evil with your tree of good and evil monologue. Stop projecting onto me and pro that which you yourself are having a problem with. You are starting to look a lot like Don Quixote battling windmills. You, and you alone, are the only one on this thread who even intimated that God could create evil or sin. Go back to your tree post and see where you asked if God cannot create or commit sin, where did the evil come from on the tree? Then quicly at the end you turned around and clamed it was us, not God. But the beginning of the post made it sould like you were blaiming God for the existence of evil. This is you doing this, you infering God can sin, not us. Don Quixote. You keep battling the windmills of opinions that are actually yours.

 

[inJESUS]

Mr. Ex Nihilo;1646142

I think’s it’s important to note that the Summa Theologica was never finished by Aquinas. This was largely due to an experience he had during mass on the 6th December 1273 whereafter he wrote nothing.

His reported explanation for this was…

I’ve thought and prayed hard about this before.

Anyone care to ponder what Aquinas believed was revealed to him in the end?

interesting…it was never revealed?

btw, nobody still answered about the idea that God knows evil yet does not do it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

interesting…it was never revealed?

To my knowledge he never explicitly revealed what it was that caused him to stop writing. Apparently, since he stopped writing at this time, it appears that he never put this revelation down into words.

inJESUS:

btw, nobody still answered about the idea that God knows evil yet does not do it.

That’s what I’m waiting for too.

inJESUS, do you think I’ve said anything bad about God by saying that he cannot sin?

I don’t think I have. In fact, I think I’m giving glory to God by stresing this simple truth. But I would like to get another fellow Catholic’s feedback on this if possible.

 

[Ella]

I have a question.
John 1 begins:
1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 4 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ________________________________

This certainly suggests that darkness is not simply an absense. Else how could it try to overcome the light?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Nonsense. All pwerful does not merely mean all good. Why cut God off at the knees?

Yes. All powerful does mean all good.

And I haven’t cut off God at the knees. Far from cutting God off at the knees, I’ve actually revealed to you that very power which enabled Christ to rise from the dead–it’s the very same reason why his knees were never broken during the crucifixion in the first place.

No. I’ve simply looked at the source of God’s power-- God is all-good. This is the very essense of the beautific vision that we all long for.

tequilamac:

All powerful could also suggest that He created the universe full of material substances- in which case while He may have created it and saw it was good, it was due to more than just being good.

When God looks at his creation and says it’s ‘very good’ is seems to me that it is ‘very good’.

Care to explain how ‘very good’ was due to more that just being ‘very good’?

tequilamac:

Your interpretation is not representative of all Catholics.

Apparently not your interpretation anyway.

tequilamac:

For instance, I am Catholic and can contemplate God being all powerful in several different senses than just “all good”.

I never said you couldn’t contemplate God being all powerful in several different senses than just “all good”. I’ve only pointed out that every attempt to do this so far has logically contradicted itself.

If this is something that you believe as a matter of faith, then I respect your thoughts.

If this is something that you believe as being a logical conclusion, then I question your thoughts deeply. There’s nothing logical in what you’re presented in your own words. And what you quoted from Aquinas doesn’t actually support what you claim it does.

If you believe the following…

tequilamac:

Sin is nothing, sin is empty, sin is temporary and transient, sin is meaningless, sin is powerless, sin is finite, sin is ignorant, sin has no substance.

…then examine God’s actions carefully.

If sin is nothing to God, then did God make the heavens and earth out of sin?

If sin is nothing to God, then did Jesus die on the cross for nothing?

I highly doubt that either of these statements are true.

First of all, God made everything ex nihilo. He didn’t make the heavens and earth out of sin.

Second of all, Jesus died on the cross for our sins. He didn’t die on the cross for nothing.

Think about what you’re claming here.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

tequilamac:

Yes He is all good, but He also all powerful in other lesser ways.

How he can be all-powerful in ‘lesser ways’?

Think about what you’re claiming here and think about how you just contradicted yourself by describing ‘all-powerful’ with the qualifier ‘lesser’.

How can anything all-powerful < all-powerful?

I thought all-powerful = all-powerful.

tequilamac:

I asked several Catholics after Mass this morning and they agree- to say God is all good to replace all powerful is cutting God off at the knees.

Yes. And I’m quite sure that you loaded your questions perfectly in order to get the answers you wanted to hear too.

Do a similar survey and ask them if they think God can sin?

And when they answer ‘no’ to this question, please also ask them how God can do any thing and not do any thing at the same time?

And when they attempt to answer that sin is nothing to God, then ask them all the other questions I’ve asked you so far.

tequilamac:

But while you’re watching TV, ask you yourself how God can be all-knowing if sin does not exist to God?

I realize that both you and pro will probably again respond with the idea that sin is not a thing to God.

Very well.

But if that’s so, then how does God know that we’re sinful? Why would God be so concerned with humanity if he wasn’t aware of our sin? And why would God go to such great lengths to save us, even to dying on a cross, if God wasn’t even aware of our sin in the first place?

If they hold the same view as you do, they may just get irate and claim that you’re sinning against God for even asking such ‘blasphemous’ questions.

I’m sorry. God was not preparing hell for people who asked such questions before he made the heavens and the earth. If that were so, then both Augustine and Aquinas would be roasting in hell.

And yet, as Catholics, we both know that Augustine and Aquinas are not in hell. They’re not even in purgatory. They are right now witnessing the glory of God’s beautific vision and earnestly praying for us to understand this simple truth: God cannot sin.

More to the point, God is love.

tequilamac:

A vote against your interpretation is not a vote against all Catholics.

It is when you ask the correct questions.

tequilamac:

Furthermore- if I cut and paste directly something Aquinas said, it does not become “my imterpretation.”

To my knowledge, I never questioned anything that Aquinas said. I only questioned your interpretation of what he said.

tequilamac:

Your first objection to what you called “my intepretation” was entirely a quote from Aquinas with nothing subtracted and nothing added.

Could you please show me where I quoted Aquinas’s words instead of your interpretations? There’s no doubt I quoted Aquinas’s words with yours. But I only separated your opinions from his words in order to clarify your own argument for you.

tequilamac:

From this I can conclude that your interest is in being correct not in being aware.

Hold on a second. I’ve never been afraid to admit that I was wrong about something. I’ve admitted I was wrong several times on this forum to be fair.

But about this question here I’m not wrong. God can’t sin.

And if you’re claming that I’ve sinned against God by saying that God cannot sin, then you are acting no differently from those religious authorities in Jesus’s time who claimed Christ was sinning against God for healing on the Sabbath.

tequilamac:

Furthermore you have corrected everyone who has posted. why are you so intereted in fighting?

No. I have not corrected ‘everyone’ who has posted. I’ve admitted several times I was wrong on this forum. But in this thread here I know what God has revealed to us. There is no question in my mind that God cannot sin. And if anyone denies this, they are wrong.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

oh wow. you are so stuck.

No. I am not ‘so stuck’ as you claim.

I am enraptured with glory of the beautific vision that is God.

Stop looking at the things of this world and start lookng at God and tell me what you see.

I know full well that I’m a sinful man. But when I look to God, I am simply knocked asunder by the majesty of his utterly holy nature. I know full well that I am a sinner in his sight. And yet I see this beauty radiating from him which purges me of this sin that separates me from him.

God’s holiness is all-mighty tequilamac. And you really do need to understand this.

tequilamac:

Why do you keep repeating God cannot sin?

Because this simple paradoxical statement penetrates to the very core of every argument presented thus far. It totally rips asunder every single false and idle thought about God.

tequilamac:

Who said He could?

Anyone who says that God can do anything is saying that God can sin. No one can get around this until they specifcally say that God can do anything good and nothing evil.

tequilamac:

you are the one who came the closest to claiming God could create evil with your tree of good and evil monologue.

No. I’m the one who knocked your arguments out of the water by presenting difficult questions for you to answer.

You can’t answer these questions. And that’s why you’re taking offense to them.

tequilamac:

Stop projecting onto me and pro that which you yourself are having a problem with.

I’m not projecting anything tequilamac.

I’m asking you difficult questions that you don’t like.

tequilamac:

You are starting to look a lot like Don Quixote battling windmills.

I’d say I’m more like Steve McQueen in the Cars movie by Disney/Pixar to be honest.

Vrooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!

The Gospel message can be seen much more clearly in that simple animated cartoon than any liberal theologian ever dreamed was contained in Don Quixote.

And, consequenntly, I say that anyone who claims that God can do anything and and not do anything is effectively kicking against the goads.

By the way, can I have one of those little propellor hats too?

wheee

tequilamac:

You, and you alone, are the only one on this thread who even intimated that God could create evil or sin.

No. I’ve simply looked at your statements (and especially pro’s too) and displayed the inconsistency contained therein.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

tequilamac:

Go back to your tree post and see where you asked if God cannot create or commit sin, where did the evil come from on the tree?

Go back and answer the questions and see how long your assertions last. I don’t even see pro attempting to defend his logica that much anymore.

He never even attempted to answer them and instead seems to be directing his energies in the direction of trying to prove my views are heterodox.

But as SpongeBob SquarePants said to Plankton when Plankton claimed he was going to rule the world…
SpongeBob SquarePants:

Wellll…good luck with that…

Consequently, his own arguments in defence of God being able to do any thing have given me ammunition against his own claims that the teachings of the Trinity are filled with contradicitons.

Whenever we get back to him, provided he actually responds, he’ll have many questions to answer from his own arguments he presented in favor of God not being able to some thing and still do any thing.

That’s mainly what this whole thread is about, isn’t it?

tequilamac:

Then quicly at the end you turned around and clamed it was us, not God. But the beginning of the post made it sould like you were blaiming God for the existence of evil. This is you doing this, you infering God can sin, not us.

No. You are both infering that God can sin whenever you claim that God can do any thing.

I’m just pointing this out to both of you in case either one of you are paying attention.

Furthermore, if sin is not a thing to God, if sin does not exist to God, if sin does not exist in God, then how does God know about sin at all?

Explaining that evils are privations of the good (something I agree with by the way), doesn’t answer any of these questions.

Explaining that vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good (which is another thing I agree with by the way), doesn’t answer any of these questions.

Explaining that we know that God can use either good or evil to accomplish His end (which is yet another thing I agree with), and that His end will be accomplished whether or not we commit evil (which is yet another thing I agree with), doesn’t answer any of these questions either.

Simple question: If sin does not exist to God, then how does God know that sin exists?

These are extremely valid questions that need to be answered if one is going to claim to have a logical view of God.

tequilamac:

Don Quixote.

I’m not interested in Don Quixote. I’m interested in God.
Don Quixote:

You keep battling the windmills of opinions that are actually yours.

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

 

[amoxoxoma]

tequilimac, the quote below is the basis of this thread for the past week. Instead of trying to find Mr. Ex Nihilo wrong in some way, I’d suggest you more closely examine the thrust of Mr. E-N’s argument against Pro"s own contradictory and illogical statements. You have got yourself stuck in the middle of this for no good reason. I’m sure Pro is enjoying the way you seem to be running interference for him. Mr. E-N is handling Pro-U’s objections in a very patient and methodical process. I’d suggest you do as I’m doing - just relax, sit back, and watch.

Consequently, his own arguments in defence of God being able to do any thing have given me ammunition against his own claims that the teachings of the Trinity are filled with contradicitons.

Whenever we get back to him, provided he actually responds, he’ll have many questions to answer from his own arguments he presented in favor of God not being able to some thing and still do any thing.

That’s mainly what this whole thread is about, isn’t it?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yet you’re saying that there are some things God isn’t capable of doing.

And you are saying that God cannot sin just like I have.

pro_universal:

Your position is heterodox from a Catholic perspective.

Saying that God cannot sin is heterodox from a Catholic perspective?

I’d say that saying that God is not a Trinity is an apostasy from the Catholic faith. Seems that way to me. But saying that God cannot sin is not heterodox from a Catholic perspective in any way, shape, or form that I’m aware of.

pro:

I’m not even sure what the Muslim perspective is on this issue…

That’s a really strange thing to claim since you are actually espousing a view of God that is nearly identical to the Islamic concept of God-- a concept which essentially defines God in terms that are so utterly transcendent that even God himself cannot be held accountable to his own Word.

pro:

…but the bottom line is, you are arguing for a limited God.

If claimng that God cannot sin is arguing for a limited God, then where does this leave your own position when you likewise admit that God cannot sin?

pro:

And the fact of the matter is, you seem to be totally incapable of addressing the argument that God can be all powerful and still all good.

No. The fact of the matter is that you seem to be totally incapable of addressing the argument that God can be all powerful and still all good in a logical manner that doesn’t inevitably contradict itself.

pro:

Yes, but you pose that this is a limit on God’s power.

And you don’t?

pro:

In fact, the reason he can’t is because his action DEFINES good.

Exactly. God’s actions define good. But it’s not his actions alone. It’s his very essense which defines good.

pro:

If God does it, it is good.

No. If God defines it as good, then it is good.

Without this simple distinction, one is in danger of sliding into the relativism of thinking that whatever they do is good because God will’s it.

Catholic doctrine doesn’t do this. Islamic doctrine does.

Although natural law grasps some of the deeper aspects of it, no one understands fully what is good and evil without this distinction

pro:

You seem to be claiming that there is some standard of goodness that is abstract from God and that God’s actions can be “judged” by that abstract principle of good and evil.

Yes. It’s definitely an abstract by which we can know God’s essense. But it is not abstract solely from God. It is abstract in relation between God and man. It’s called the Ten Commandments, the very thing which God himself revealed through Moses in order to aid us in discerning between good and evil.

As Psalm 19:7 says, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.”

These laws are structured about God’s very essence pro.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

As Psalm 19:7 says, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.”

These laws are structured about God’s very essence pro.

We shall not have any strange gods before God.
Why? God is the true God above all gods.

We shall not take the Lord’s name in vain.
Why? God’s name is the name above all names.

We shall remember to keep the Sabbath day holy.
Why? God is our eternal Sabbath rest.

We shall honor our father and mother.
Why? God is our Father in heaven.

We shall not murder.
Why? God is our eternal life.

We shall not commit adultery.
Why? God is our eternal husband who is faithful and true.

We shall not steal.
Why? God is our eternal gift freely offered to all.

We shall not bear false witness.
Why? God is our eternal truth.

We shall not covet our neighbor’s spouse?
Why? God is our eternal covenant between husband and wife.

We shall not covet our neighbor’s goods.
Why? God is our eternal covenant between between man and his possessions.

In other words, to break any of these commandments is to break oneself away from God’s very essense. More to the point, if God ever ceased to do any of these things, he would stop being God. Therefore, the structure of these ten commandment outlines with perfect clarity exactly what God is by clearly stating what we are not permitted to do.

pro:

I think this is the root of your deep misunderstanding.

You’re telling me that God cannot do some thing and that God can do any thing at the same time, and you’re claming that I have a deep misunderstanding?

pro:

I’m saying that God is so powerful, he defines what is good by his very existence.

Exactly. And we are partially in agreement here. But God is not so powerful that he can arbitrarilly contradict himself by doing the logically impossible. God cannot capriciously contradict his own essense.

pro:

So if God does something, it is good…whatever it is that he does.

No. It is not true to say if God does something, it is good…whatever it is that he does.

For example…

If God has strange gods before him, then he is not doing good.
If God takes the Lord’s name in vain, then he is not doing good.
If God fails to remember to keep the Sabbath day holy, then he is not doing good.
If God does not honor father and mother, then he is not doing good.
If God murders, then he is not doing good.
If God commits adultery, then he is not doing good.
If God steals, then he is not doing good.
If God bears false witness, then he is not doing good.
If God covets our spouse, then he is not doing good.
If God covets our goods, then he is not doing good.

So it is not true that whatever God does is good because he does it.

It is true that whatever God does is good because his actions do not break any of the commandments which exemplify his very essense.

pro:

Hence, there is no sensible way to talk even in theory about “God sinning”, because if God did it, it is by definition not a sin (whatever the thing is.)

Please review my list of things above that would be considered sinful if God actually did them.

Sounds fairly sensible to me.

As I said before, it is not enough to say that whatever God does is good.

Whatever God defines as good is good. And whatever he does mirrors the very commandments that he’s revealed to us in order to make his essense more knowable to us.

Without a thorough understanding of God’s law, humanity can (and will) misunderstand the very definition of God’s good essense and inevitably blaspheme God even though they think they are doing good.

On the secular side, it’s the very same reason that people often fall into the modern relativism that we see today. On the Islamic side, it’s the very same reason that radical Muslims often fall into the religious extremism that we see today.

pro:

I seriously question the extent of your learning regarding the greatest doctors of the Church.

I’ve seriously questioned your logic and you’ve repeatedly failed to demonstrate anything even remotely resembling a logical defense of your theodicy of God. In fact, you’ve failed miserably on all accounts and repeatedly missed key elements which clearly indicate that you are thinking more like a Muslim than a Catholic.

pro:

You are repeatedly making assertions on this thread that even rudimentary knowledge of the greats’ opinions would let you know are wrong.

Who’s making the assertions pro?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

tequilimac, the quote below is the basis of this thread for the past week. Instead of trying to find Mr. Ex Nihilo wrong in some way, I’d suggest you more closely examine the thrust of Mr. E-N’s argument against Pro"s own contradictory and illogical statements. You have got yourself stuck in the middle of this for no good reason. I’m sure Pro is enjoying the way you seem to be running interference for him. Mr. E-N is handling Pro-U’s objections in a very patient and methodical process. I’d suggest you do as I’m doing - just relax, sit back, and watch.

Thank you amoxoxoma.

 

[pro_universal]

Lots of posting, little thinking.

There’s really no attack to defend here. The claim that you were going to lay all this out clearly using something resembling a logical approach is gone. You said you were moving on from “syllogisms” (a useless tool in this context), and you started posting furiously from the bible and blasting anyone who critiques your view.

Here’s a summary of the live facts here:

1. God is all powerful. That does not mean that God is limited in his abilities to act. If it did, the phrase itself would be absurd.
2. Your view is that “God is all powerful” includes the proposition “God isn’t able to do some things.” That is a ridiculous view, and it’s plainly heterodox.
3. This whole thread is proving how easy it is to find yourself lost in Catholic teaching. You clearly do not understand it, and your certainty and pictures of mongooses doesn’t change that.
4. Logic: We got nowhere on how that can apply.

Tequilamac stepped in to point out that your views are not orthodox. He’s right about that, plain and simple, and my views are irrelevant to that question.

Amox stepped in because Amox “wants to show me that I’m not as wise as I think I am” (So says Amox in personal messages to me.) That sentiment reflects the complete absence of anything resembling a contribution to the debate.

Mr. Ex, I’d like to see two things from you, and I’ll assume the point conceded if you don’t provide it:

1. A logical representation of my statements showing contradictions.
2. Church authorities to support your claim that God is limited in his power in any respect.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Lots of posting, little thinking.

You quote Scriptures to me, and yet you cannot say whether or not the Scriptures are actually trustworthy.

You explain that Augustine’s and more specifcally Aquinas’ thoughts on God are the best to date, and yet you also claim that the logic they used was primitve to the point of being nearly useless by todays standards.

You say that God can do any thing and yet you say that God canot sin-- going to far as to actually say that it is theoretically impossible for God to sin because sin does not exist to God.

You also claim that God is all-knowing even though you admit that God does not actually know that sin exists-- once again indicating that you actually don’t believe that God knows all things after all.

In addition to all this, you claim that I’m not using modern logic because I haven’t included mathematical symbols even though I am using the modern logical approach known as the rules of derivation (inferrence rules) to determine what new formulas may be derived from the original premises.

Can you get any more contradictory pro?

What were your reasons for not believing in the Trinity again?

 

[pro_universal]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

You quote Scriptures to me, and yet you cannot say whether or not the Scriptures are actually trustworthy.

This question makes no sense. Believing that the bible is the word of God is one thing; acknowledging that others believe it to be so is another. Whatever I think of the scriptures, they are without a doubt trustworthy for the purpose of figuring out what Catholics believe.

You explain that Augustine’s and more specifcally Aquinas’ thoughts on God are the best to date, and yet you also claim that the logic they used was primitve to the point of being nearly useless by todays standards.

This is a point that comes from your failure to appreciate what logic does. They wrote logical arguments using natural language; at the time, they were incapable of analyzing their own or others arguments with any tool other than natural language. But the arguments were still logical, and on some specific issues, they did very well (like the explanation of the problem of evil and the so-called “contradictions” in the idea of an all powerful God.)

You say that God can do any thing and yet you say that God canot sin-- going to far as to actually say that it is theoretically impossible for God to sin because sin does not exist to God.

Yes, you miss the point again. “God’s sin” is not a thing, even in theory. It’s incoherent to even talk about the possibility of God sinning (and that means logically incoherent). Hence, there is no thing that God cannot do…coming up with a jumble of words and saying “see, God can’t do this!” does not describe a limit on God’s power.

In addition to all this, you claim that I’m not using modern logic because I haven’t included mathematical symbols even though I am using the modern logical approach known as the rules of derivation (inferrence rules) to determine what new formulas may be derived from the original premises.

No, you haven’t done this. Not even close. You’ve not cited on rule of inference, nor even laid out the foundation for what would make a logical analysis.

What were your reasons for not believing in the Trinity again?

It’s contradictory and consistent with a natural human tendency to lionize good leaders into Gods.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Lots of posting, little thinking.

There’s really no attack to defend here. The claim that you were going to lay all this out clearly using something resembling a logical approach is gone. You said you were moving on from “syllogisms” (a useless tool in this context), and you started posting furiously from the bible and blasting anyone who critiques your view.

Blasting?

Why don’t you actually attempt to debate this and this instead of crying foul again?

As I asked before, why are you quoting Scripture to me if you can’t say for sure whether the Christian Scriptures are corrupted or not?

Likewise, please at least try to make an effort to put this in context pro.

Luke 18:27 also says, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

But you don’t actually understand the Christian Scriptures, do you?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Amox stepped in because Amox “wants to show me that I’m not as wise as I think I am” (So says Amox in personal messages to me.) That sentiment reflects the complete absence of anything resembling a contribution to the debate.

I’d refer to allow amoxoxoma speak for himself.

Perhaps he’s saying that he thinks you’re not as wise as you think you are because he really believes you’re not as wise as you think you are.

And if you’re using false applications of logic to denounce a Christian doctrine that you no longer beleive in, this alone represents a significant contribution to the reason why you debate.

You do illogically use the strictest applications of logic when it suits your purpose and blatently disregard them all when it doesn’t suit your purpose. You also like to tell others what they actually think and have no problem telling them they have no idea what they are talking about.

But I’ve fairly well turned your own arguments on their head so that your own words condemn the very words you’re using against us. In other words, you’re telling yourself what you actually think and you have no problem telling yourself that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You don’t believe that the Catholic Church, or for that matter Christianity in general, is the truest faith anymore. And everything you’ve been posting to date reflects this simple truth: you are trying to convince yourself that the Catholic Church is no longer where you need to be– just like the rest of us use logic to verify what we already believe.

And if this is the reason why you are debating and claiming to use logic in doing so, then the entire basis of you’re argument is a sham. More properly, this sentiment reflects the complete absence of anything resembling a reason to debate pro.

These are questions of faith regardless of how much you use the logical ‘window dressing’ you’ve been using.

It’s really simple.

If you don’t like the Catholic faith anymore and prefer the Islamic faith, then leave us and join them.

Nobody’s stopping you. You don’t actually care about anything that anyone has advanced for you to understand this better. Nor do you seem to actually desire to be convinced in the first place. I suspect that you never actually did believe this. And I’m not sure you ever were really convinced in the first place.

 

[tequilamac]

I’d refer to allow amoxoxoma speak for himself.

Perhaps he’s saying that he thinks you’re not as wise as you think you are because he really believes you’re not as wise as you think you are.

And if you’re using false applications of logic to denounce a Christian doctrine that you no longer beleive in, this alone represents a significant contribution to the reason why you debate.

You do illogically use the strictest applications of logic when it suits your purpose and blatently disregard them all when it doesn’t suit your purpose. You also like to tell others what they actually think and have no problem telling them they have no idea what they are talking about.

But I’ve fairly well turned your own arguments on their head so that your own words condemn the very words you’re using against us. In other words, you’re telling yourself what you actually think and you have no problem telling yourself that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You don’t believe that the Catholic Church, or for that matter Christianity in general, is the truest faith anymore. And everything you’ve been posting to date reflects this simple truth: you are trying to convince yourself that the Catholic Church is no longer where you need to be– just like the rest of us use logic to verify what we already believe.

And if this is the reason why you are debating and claiming to use logic in doing so, then the entire basis of you’re argument is a sham. More properly, this sentiment reflects the complete absence of anything resembling a reason to debate pro.

These are questions of faith regardless of how much you use the logical ‘window dressing’ you’ve been using.

It’s really simple.

If you don’t like the Catholic faith anymore and prefer the Islamic faith, then leave us and join them.

Nobody’s stopping you. You don’t actually care about anything that anyone has advanced for you to understand this better. Nor do you seem to actually desire to be convinced in the first place. I suspect that you never actually did believe this. And I’m not sure you ever were really convinced in the first place.

And so, with this Mr. Ex Nihilo’s renderings, the thread has come full circle to where it started. Mr. Ex Nihilo has stated what many already stated at the beginning of the thread. Do we call that a thread killer? Or perhaps it is time to ask the moderator to close the thread due to a lack of faith and charity.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The claim that you were going to lay all this out clearly using something resembling a logical approach is gone.

Only because you refuse to actually look at what’s being explained. I haven’t used the symbols involved, but I’ve been using the basics of modern logical analysis from the begining pro.

To test an argument, we first analyzes its statements and express them as symbols.

As you pointed out, a letter or other character in an argument stands for the whole word or phrase.

So, for example, I would write a sentence “Anaxamander is wise” as “Wa”.

The sentence “Every Greek is wise” would be written as a formula: “(x) (Gx → Wx)”

The → means if ______________, then ______________.

Next, I would use rules of derivation to determine what new formulaes may be derived from the original premises.

For example, one rule enables the statement “Q” to be derived from the statements “P” and “(P → Q)”.

In this instance the statement “The parade is canceled” may be derived from “It is raining” and “If it is raining, then the parade is canceled.”

It is in this way that we continue to derive formulas until a conclusion has been reached.

You can try to belittle me if you want for not presenting things using the mathematical symbols. But I have been using modern logical analysis the whole way through this thread. I’ve specifically used these rules to determine what new formulaes may be derived from your original premises.

I’m not sure what else I can say.

In the end, all that I’ve pointed out is that you’re thinking more like a Muslim than a Catholic-- and all you’ve really done is repeatedly accuse me of being a heterodox Catholic that doesn’t know a thing about logic.

Yeah. Good luck with that kind of approach pro. You’re going to convince a lot of people that way.