pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[pro_universal]

You asked for definitions, but they clearly are not needed, since if you didn’t know what the definitions were, you couldn’t have concluded that they are contradictory. It is impossible to contradict two different words without knowing the definition of at least one.

Since I don’t want to open the dictionary and you clearly know what the terms are, I’ll skip to your “contradictions”:

Yes. They most certainly do-- all of them I might add.

For example, if God is all powerful, then this means he can do anything.

But since God is all knowing, this means he can’t be all powerful. Because if God was all powerful, then he would also be able to not know something.

I’m not seeing the contradiction here. How does willing that he not know something constitute “not all powerful”?

Having the capability to do anything and to know anything at the same time is not contradictory. You’re trying to imagine a case where one power is used to contradict another, but there is nothing inherently contradictory about either.

Consequently, God apparently doesn’t know all things anyway. Because if God did know all things, then he would also know of a way to be material as well as immaterial. Consequently, since God apparently can’t become material, he’s apparently again not all powerful either.

CS Lewis answered this charge handily. As you ought to be aware, you are paraphrasing a common atheist argument against the Christian idea of free will.

A contradiction is just a semantic device; it does not describe any real thing that exists. The fact that you can say “there is a square with no angles” or “a triangle with four angles” doesn’t mean that there must be either thing. The fact that God can’t create something that by definition is incoherent doesn’t constitute a limit, because it’s not an actual thing that he can’t do…you’re rather identifying a nonsensical use of language.

God can do any thing. You can construct a nonsense sentence that doesn’t describe any one thing, and then claim God can’t do it…but that’s not a limit, that’s you misusing words.

Nonetheless, this brings us to mercy. Now since God is immaterial, does this mean his mercy is** immaterial** as well? And if his mercy is not immaterial, then how does God actually manifest his mercy within his creation? If God is all powerful, can he arbitrarilly withhold his mercy and not be held accountable to anyone?

These are all questions that presume mercy requires a material form. It is bizarre that you would see a contradiction in the statement that an idea is not material.

If I am a judge and show mercy to a defendant, does that mean that someone can take my mercy and put it on a scale and weigh it? Or measure the size of my mercy?

Since God is good, it is clear that he will manifest his mercy somehow. But if God is also immaterial, how does he actually manifest his good in his creation? Likewise, if it is being claimed that God is good, then he apparently can’t do evil-- which is yet another limitation which again proves he’s not all powerful. If God became material would this be considered evil?

A manifestation is not identical to the thing. Mercy and Justice are ideas; jail bars do not equate with mercy or justice. But jail bars may be employed in service of the idea of justice or mercy.

Your evil/material dichotomy is undeveloped. I can’t comment on it because there’s not actually an argument there either way.

I appreciate your effort, but I think you need to reexamine what a contradiction means. A contradiction is a logical inconsistency of the basic form “a and not a.” It is not “this seems like a good idea to me.”

There’s not a single contradiction in terms above. Not even close to one, really, and your argument seems to be going on a path that doesn’t even approach the identification of a logical contradiction.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I just gave you one. Here’s a more simple way, perhaps more what you are asking for:

“God is eternal and unlimited.” No contradiction.

Sure there is.

Can God ever not be eternal? If not, then he’s not unlimited.

Can God ever not be unlimited? If not, then he’s not eternal.

pro_universal:

This is not an example of a contradiction.

If one guy says God has no origin, and a different guy says “Yes, God had an origin”, what you have is a disagreement, but neither party contradicts himself.

But I’m not talking about two guys arguing over whether God has an origin or not. I’m asking you how one differentiates between God and nothingness.

As I said before, technically speaking, God has no origin. He has been around forever without beginning.

And yet, nothingness, according to some, also has no origin. In their opinion, since nothingness was never actually created, it too apparently has no beginning.

Bearing these similar origins in mind, how does one differentiate between God and nothingness?

pro_universal:

This has to do with our experience and understanding of time. But it does not contradict anything about our simple claims for God above.

So how we experience the same time in past, present and future bears no resemblance to the same God experienced as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

pro_universal:

In short, there is no contradiction above in what I posted or in your questions.

You haven’t actually answered one of my questions yet.

And, in regards to your other answers, I’ve already asked you many more questions to refine the qualities of God as you’ve presented them.

pro_universal:

It is certainly possible to say things about God without falling into contradiction.

I think it is too. But, to be fair, I don’t think you’ve done it yet.

 

[inJESUS]

Because a 3D image concerns ink and paper.

excuse me? ink? you do know that when an analogy is used, you look for the meaning and not the details, don’t you? being compared to a moon, does not mean that the woman is a planet, or does it?

If the trinity is like an image, then what you’re saying is that there aren’t really three persons…there just appear to be three persons to our vision. That negates the trinity.

 

[pro_universal]

excuse me? ink? you do know that when an analogy is used, you look for the meaning and not the details, don’t you? being compared to a moon, does not mean that the woman is a planet, or does it?

 

[inJESUS]

Hold on a moment there. Let’s back up a little bit.

Actually, you are defining God when you say things about him.

And, for the record, the things you say about him do not say much yet.

Now let’s go through your list below…

Define ‘all powerful’.

For example, does ‘all powerful’ mean that God can do anything? Or can God only do anything he wants to do? Can God only do things which are good? Can God, as the old proverbial question asks, create a stone so heavy that even he cannot pick it up?

Define ‘all knowing’.

For example, does ‘all knowing’ mean that God simultaniously know all things that ever happened, happen, and will happen from all different perspectives in time? Does God know his own past, present and future? Can God go back and change something that he has already done? Can God actually change his mind if he already knows his own future? Can God actually make a choice?

Define ‘immaterial’.

For example, does this mean that God does not have any substance? Does this mean that God is purely spirit? If so, what is spirit? And if there is no adequate definition of spirit available (or God does not actually exist in spirit), does this mean that God does not actually exist? If not, then how does God exist?

Define ‘merciful’.

For example, does this mean God is just and will bring judgment fairly? Does this mean that God will forgive all people with superabundant mercy regardless of what they do? How does God manifest his mercy? Could God reasonably decide to forgive someone who doesn’t deserves forgiveness just because he is merciful? Is God accountable to anyone when distributing his mercy?

Define ‘good’.

For example, if God is good, can God think about evil? Would God thinking about evil make a part of God’s mind evil? Likewise, how can God know if something were evil since he is good? Does God know that evil exists? If so, how does God know evil exists since he is good?

Yes. They most certainly do-- all of them I might add.

For example, if God is all powerful, then this means he can do anything.

But since God is all knowing, this means he can’t be all powerful. Because if God was all powerful, then he would also be able to not know something.

Consequently, God apparently doesn’t know all things anyway. Because if God did know all things, then he would also know of a way to be material as well as immaterial. Consequently, since God apparently can’t become material, he’s apparently again not all powerful either.

Nonetheless, this brings us to mercy. Now since God is immaterial, does this mean his mercy is** immaterial** as well? And if his mercy is not immaterial, then how does God actually manifest his mercy within his creation? If God is all powerful, can he arbitrarilly withhold his mercy and not be held accountable to anyone?

Since God is good, it is clear that he will manifest his mercy somehow. But if God is also immaterial, how does he actually manifest his good in his creation? Likewise, if it is being claimed that God is good, then he apparently can’t do evil-- which is yet another limitation which again proves he’s not all powerful. If God became material would this be considered evil?

 

[pro_universal]

Sure there is.

Can God ever not be eternal? If not, then he’s not unlimited.

False dilemma. If he decided to be not eternal, he would be limited by definition.

All you’re saying there is that an unlimited God can’t be limited. That’s a truism, and it’s a reformulation of what I already said.

Can God ever not be unlimited? If not, then he’s not eternal.

Too many negatives. What you actually wrote was that if God cannot be limited, then he’s not eternal.

Which is silly. I’m sorry to put it that way, but see above. You’re making a really basic error here.

But I’m not talking about two guys arguing over whether God has an origin or not. I’m asking you how one differentiates between God and nothingness.

Who cares? It’s irrelevant to my statements about God. If you want to add in statements that I didn’t make, of course you can try to create a contradiction. But that’s a ridiculous point to defend, isn’t it?

Bearing these similar origins in mind, how does one differentiate between God and nothingness?

This has absolutely zero to do with whether or not saying that God is eternal is a contradiction.

So how we experience the same time in past, present and future bears no resemblance to the same God experienced as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Yes, none whatsoever. And it’s also completely irrelevant to my statements about God above.

You haven’t actually answered one of my questions yet.

Perhaps because you aren’t reading my posts?

 

[inJESUS]

thank you

The problem is that it doesn’t compare to the trinity.

The trinity asserts that God really is these three different persons.

. and the picture is really these three different angles

See the difference? If the trinity is just the way humans perceive God, then it’s not true to say that God is by nature triune, only that humans see one God in three different ways

. each angle is the whole picture just like each person is wholy God.That’s the whole idea of the analogy and which proves, again, that the concept is no contradiction. You can lie to yourself till you die, this will not prove the concept as contradictory.

.

 

[pro_universal]

thank you

as contradictory.

.

You are confused as to what is the picture. If you mean “the image in our mind”, then sure…but that doesn’t alter the makeup of the lines on the paper. They’re not any different in any real way no matter what angle you see them from. The only thing that changes is your mind.

That’s not the case with the trinity. And the reason you’re continuing with an analogy instead of just dealing in the terms of the trinity is that you realize that.

 

[inJESUS]

again:

God= Father, Son, Holy Spirit
3D pic= picture1, picture2,picture3

picture1= Picture Father= God
picture2= Picture Son= God
picture3= Picture Spirit=God

whether it is picture 1or 2 or 3, it the the one and same picture
whether it is Father or Son or Spirit , it is the One and same God.

 

[pro_universal]

again:

God= Father, Son, Holy Spirit
3D pic= picture1, picture2,picture3

picture1= Picture Father= God
picture2= Picture Son= God
picture3= Picture Spirit=God

whether it is picture 1or 2 or 3, it the the one and same picture
whether it is Father or Son or Spirit , it is the One and same God.

If you can’t see how that’s not the trinity, there’s nothing more I can do to explain it to you. At this point it’s like arguing over 1+1 equalling 2.

 

[inJESUS]

again:

God= Father, Son, Holy Spirit
3D pic= picture1, picture2,picture3

picture1= Picture Father= God
picture2= Picture Son= God
picture3= Picture Spirit=God

whether it is picture 1or 2 or 3, it the the one and same picture
whether it is Father or Son or Spirit , it is the One and same God.

all this to prove what? to prove that the CONCEPT of 3 distinct things can be ONE same thing is not contradictory.

In the same way that a 3D picture presents 3 different angles of the same picture, the Trinity presents 3 different persons of the same God.

 

[pro_universal]

all this to prove what? to prove that the CONCEPT of 3 distinct things can be ONE same thing is not contradictory.

In the same way that a 3D picture presents 3 different angles of the same picture, the Trinity presents 3 different persons of the same God.

Okay, now I see the problem. Go back to pages 2 and 3 and read my argument on the trinity.

You clearly did not do that. Now I see why you’re still at this level.

The concept of three things is not the problem. Reread my discussion with Contarini.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You asked for definitions, but they clearly are not needed, since if you didn’t know what the definitions were, you couldn’t have concluded that they are contradictory.

This sentence doesn’t actually make any sense.

pro_universal:

It is impossible to contradict two different words without knowing the definition of at least one.

I am aware of the definitions. And you are using them in a contradictory fashion.

pro_universal:

Since I don’t want to open the dictionary and you clearly know what the terms are, I’ll skip to your “contradictions”:

No. You need to go back and answer the questions so you can resolve your own contradictions.

But let’s continue on.

pro_universal:

I’m not seeing the contradiction here. How does willing that he not know something constitute “not all powerful”?

Because something being ‘all-powerful’ means they can do anything-- such as making the logically impossible circle-square thing. And God cannot, by the very definition of the words being used, make this.

In other words, even God has his limits.

God =/= All Powerful

God = Most Powerful

pro_universal:

Having the capability to do anything and to know anything at the same time is not contradictory.

You’re missing the point.

If God already knows the future, can he actually make a choice?

pro_universal:

You’re trying to imagine a case where one power is used to contradict another, but there is nothing inherently contradictory about either.

I’m not trying to imagine anything pro_universal.

The points you’ve presented are contradictory.

That’s why I’m asking you some questions regrading these contradictions and I would hope that you would answer the questions I’ve asked.

pro_universal:

You’re trying to imagine a case where one power is used to contradict another, but there is nothing inherently contradictory about either.

Sure there is.

pro_universal:

CS Lewis answered this charge handily. As you ought to be aware, you are paraphrasing a common atheist argument against the Christian idea of free will.

Actually, I’m arguing in favor of free-will. But we’ll get to that later.

I like C.S. Lewis so let’s get to his thoughts…

pro_universal:

A contradiction is just a semantic device; it does not describe any real thing that exists. The fact that you can say “there is a square with no angles” or “a triangle with four angles” doesn’t mean that there must be either thing. The fact that God can’t create something that by definition is incoherent doesn’t constitute a limit, because it’s not an actual thing that he can’t do…you’re rather identifying a nonsensical use of language.

And you’re not identifying a nonsensical use of language when claiming the Trinity cannot be understood?

pro_universal:

God can do any thing.

No. Apparnetly, according to your definition, God cannot become material.

This isn’t just a ‘nonsensical use of language’ by the way.

You really are claming that God cannot become material-- this is a limitation that your definition of god is imposing on him.

pro_universal:

So, no, God cannot do anything

First you said God can do any thing.

Then you said God cannot do anything.

Which one is it?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

quote=pro_universal]You can construct a nonsense sentence that doesn’t describe any one thing, and then claim God can’t do it…but that’s not a limit, that’s you misusing words.

Kind of like what you’re doing when you make the claims you do against the Christian concept of the Trinity?

pro_universal:

These are all questions that presume mercy requires a material form. It is bizarre that you would see a contradiction in the statement that an idea is not material.

You still haven’t answered my question regarding what God is.

Is God Spirit or merely an idea?

pro_universal:

If I am a judge and show mercy to a defendant, does that mean that someone can take my mercy and put it on a scale and weigh it? Or measure the size of my mercy?

Yes.

pro_universal:

A manifestation is not identical to the thing. Mercy and Justice are ideas; jail bars do not equate with mercy or justice. But jail bars may be employed in service of the idea of justice or mercy.

You haven’t answered the question.

How does an immaterial God interact with his material creation?

pro_universal:

Your evil/material dichotomy is undeveloped.

No, actually, it’s very well developed. And I’d like you to answer the question if you could.

pro_universal:

I can’t comment on it because there’s not actually an argument there either way.

The question is fairly simple.

If God is by his very essense good then how can he perceive evil?

pro_universal:

I appreciate your effort, but I think you need to reexamine what a contradiction means.

My apologies, but I don’t appreciate the lack of effort you’ve put into answering my questions.

pro_universal:

A contradiction is a logical inconsistency of the basic form “a and not a.” It is not “this seems like a good idea to me.”

Actually, I’m aware of what a contradiction is.

pro_universal:

There’s not a single contradiction in terms above. Not even close to one, really, and your argument seems to be going on a path that doesn’t even approach the identification of a logical contradiction.

Great. Then you should be able to answer the rest of the questions I asked you without any difficulty at all.

Thanks. I’ll be waiting for your response.

 

[pro_universal]

This sentence doesn’t actually make any sense.

I presumed you knew more about logic than you do. I do not mean that as an insult, I mean it sincerely.

Logical contradictions are contradictions in the terms you use. If you don’t know the definitions of two different terms, there’s no possible, imaginable way you can make the case that they contradict each other.

The only way to have a contradiction is to have the basic form of “a and not a”. If you don’t have the same term affirmed and negated, you have no contradiction.

No. You need to go back and answer the questions so you can resolve your own contradictions.

There aren’t any. There’s just a lot of your idea of what things might or might not actually be like out there in the universe.

Because something being ‘all-powerful’ means they can do anything-- such as making the logically impossible circle-square thing. And God cannot, by the very definition of the words being used, make this.

See the CS lewis argument. Your conclusion shows you that this line of reasoning is absurd

In other words, even God has his limits.

See? “God is limited and unlimited” is a contradiction, because you both affirm the limit, and negate the limit.

If God already knows the future, can he actually make a choice?

Who cares? Where did “choice” enter into this? You’re giving an example of speculation as to the nature of God, not a contradiction.

You can conceive of a God who is time bound to make this problem, but I made no such statement about how God is bound by time. This is an argument for some other conception of God, not the one I posted above.

The points you’ve presented are contradictory.

All that statement does is demonstrate that you do not understand what a contradiction is.

And you’re not identifying a nonsensical use of language when claiming the Trinity cannot be understood?

No, identifying contradictions and labelling them as such is not “nonsensical use of language.”

Saying “God is both immortal and mortal, there is a contradiction”, is not senseless. It’s a sentence that labels a contradiction as such.

No. Apparnetly, according to your definition, God cannot become material.

Well, according to my definition God wouldn’t do anything that is a complete contradiction, because contradictions don’t represent actual things. They are linguistic mistakes, not descriptions of an event that can actually occur.

You really are claming that God cannot become material-- this is a limitation that your definition of god is imposing on him.

It is a logical extension of the word “immaterial.” Like “A circle can’t have four angles.”

It’s not a contradiction, it’s identifying what makes sense given the language used.

Which one is it?

Consider the word “thing.” A contradiction in terms is not a “thing” in the real world; it is a linguistic mistake. God can certainly make contradictory statements just like you did…but that doesn’t mean that there has to be some actual real “thing” out in the world to correspond to it beyond the sentence itself.

If you don’t have even a foggy idea of formal logic, you will probably not understand this debate. You should really get yourself up to speed on the basics of logical analysis before you continue.

 

[pro_universal]

How does an immaterial God interact with his material creation?

By miraculous powers.

If God is by his very essense good then how can he perceive evil?

Another bizarre question. Does knowing something bad make one a bad person?

The ability to perceive has zero connection to the essence. A good being can see bad, no contradiction there. Likewise, a bad being can see good. This is really out-there.

Actually, I’m aware of what a contradiction is.

You clearly are not, if you are calling what you posted a contradiction.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

False dilemma. If he decided to be not eternal, he would be limited by definition.

Just like your arguments against the Trinity are not false dilemmas.

pro_universal:

All you’re saying there is that an unlimited God can’t be limited. That’s a truism, and it’s a reformulation of what I already said.

Yes pro_universal.

And by now you’re hopefully starting to realize why I’m asking you these questions.

pro_universal:

Too many negatives. What you actually wrote was that if God cannot be limited, then he’s not eternal.

Yeah…I did fudge that one up a little bit-- although it could still be made to fit. Anyway, I hope you are now understanding why I’ve been asking you these questions.

pro_universal:

Which is silly. I’m sorry to put it that way, but see above. You’re making a really basic error here.

Yes. It is silly, isn’t it?

pro_universal:

Who cares? It’s irrelevant to my statements about God. If you want to add in statements that I didn’t make, of course you can try to create a contradiction. But that’s a ridiculous point to defend, isn’t it?

But that actually does apply to your argument pro_universal.

pro_universal:

This has absolutely zero to do with whether or not saying that God is eternal is a contradiction.

Bearing these similar origins in mind, how does one differentiate between God and nothingness?

Yes. It does apply by the way.

pro_universal:

Yes, none whatsoever. And it’s also completely irrelevant to my statements about God above.

But it does apply to the trinity.

pro_universal:

Perhaps because you aren’t reading my posts?

Actually, pro_universal, I think I can safely say that you are not reading anyone’s posts in these threads. At the very least, I can now honeslty say that your are routinely dismissing people’s arguments without even thinking about what people are actually explaining to you.

Have a good day.

 

[pro_universal]

But that actually does apply to your argument pro_universal.

No, it doesn’t. You asked me to say some things about God that weren’t contradictory.

You can’t add your own ideas about God to what I said to make the contradiction.

That should be obvious.

Bearing these similar origins in mind, how does one differentiate between God and nothingness?

What on earth does the similar origin have to do with my statements on God?

Why do I need to “differentiate between God and nothingness” to elaborate my statements about God?

This is truly baffling. I have no idea where this is going, but I am one hundred percent certain it has nothing to do with a logical analysis of my statements on God.

Actually, pro_universal, I think I can safely say that you are not reading anyone’s posts in these threads. At the very least, I can now honeslty say that your are routinely dismissing people’s arguments without even thinking about what people are actually explaining to you

There’s not that much to think about. It’s almost immediately apparent when someone has said nothing at all.

 

[inJESUS]

Okay, now I see the problem. Go back to pages 2 and 3 and read my argument on the trinity.

You clearly did not do that. Now I see why you’re still at this level.

The concept of three things is not the problem. Reread my discussion with Contarini.

i did. Contarini pointed out the fact that your point of view is Islamic, to which i agree .
And your problem seems to be with Jesus being God. You assume that Jesus’ body is God which means a mortal body is God which is a contradiction. And Contarini explained to you that this is not the case.

If Jesus is God in both natures then Jesus was no man. But when we say Jesus was fully human, it means that you can ascribe to Jesus everything you ascribe to God.

 

[pro_universal]

i did. Contarini pointed out the fact that your point of view is Islamic, to which i agree .
And your problem seems to be with Jesus being God. You assume that Jesus’ body is God which means a mortal body is God which is a contradiction. And Contarini explained to you that this is not the case.

Okay, if Jesus’s body isn’t God, why do you eat it?

If Jesus’s body is not God, then how can God be said to have “incarnated”? After all, if the body isn’t him, then God didn’t become flesh…he created flesh separate from himself and controlled it.

If the incarnation means anything at all, it means that Jesus’s body is God.

If Jesus is God in both natures then Jesus was no man. But when we say Jesus was fully human, it means that you can ascribe to Jesus everything you ascribe to God.

Exactly. So when Jesus died, God died. God is immortal but God died?

There’s another contradiction.