pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[melbourne_guy]

I CANT BELIEVE YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE HE WAS ONCE A CATHOLIC. LOL. Are you people serious? He has lied to everyone becuase islam states that your allowed to decieve in order to gain converts. Doesnt it seem odd to some of you that pro-universal only popped up when the topic was about islam? He’s a liar and i feel really sorry for alot of the people who are showing sypmpathy for this low person. P.s i have nothing against descent muslims who DONT LIE.

 

[inJESUS]

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.

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

There’s another contradiction.

i see now why you are confused. I’ll let Contarini or someone who masters theological vocab. answer you because i will confuse you more because of my shortcomings in theological vocabs in English. With such matters, word use is essential and am not the best candidate.

When this point is explained to you, you’ll see why there is absolutely no contradiction

 

[pro_universal]

I CANT BELIEVE YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE HE WAS ONCE A CATHOLIC. LOL. Are you people serious? He has lied to everyone becuase islam states that your allowed to decieve in order to gain converts. Doesnt it seem odd to some of you that pro-universal only popped up when the topic was about islam? He’s a liar and i feel really sorry for alot of the people who are showing sypmpathy for this low person. P.s i have nothing against descent muslims who DONT LIE.

Let’s try this: How about you post the specific language of mine that convinces you that I’m lying?

And strange enough, I haven’t once urged anyone here to convert to Islam (and have denied repeatedly being Muslim myself.) Odd way to “gain converts”, isn’t it?

 

[inJESUS]

I CANT BELIEVE YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE HE WAS ONCE A CATHOLIC. LOL. .

i never ever did.

his understanding of the incarnation is Islamic…that’s why we were not on the same wave

 

[pro_universal]

i see now why you are confused. I’ll let Contarini or someone who masters theological vocab. answer you because i will confuse you more because of my shortcomings in theological vocabs in English. With such matters, word use is essential and am not the best candidate.

When this point is explained to you, you’ll see why there is absolutely no contradiction

I’d sure like to see it.

 

[inJESUS]

why don’t you open a new thread? it’ll be a fresh start.

 

[pro_universal]

why don’t you open a new thread? it’ll be a fresh start.

If you like, you can open it and I’ll join, but otherwise this thread keeps comments about my beliefs on topic. And people will definitely have comments about me personally.

 

[inJESUS]

If you like, you can open it and I’ll join, but otherwise this thread keeps comments about my beliefs on topic. And people will definitely have comments about me personally.

ok give me your question and ill open a thread. I don’t want to post smthing that does’t reflect your concern.

 

[inJESUS]

Correction:

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’t ascribe to Jesus everything you ascribe to God

i opened a thread for you.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

I would ask you to stop doing that. Debate my argument without making claims against me.

pro:

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.

I know about logical contradictions pro_universal.

I also know that you are now using fluid defintions specifically to avoid your ideas being pinned down-- all the while you’re trying to besmirch my own reputation by claiming I don’t understand logic.

Why don’t you just explain where I made a mistake instead of explaining (over and over again) that I made a mistake without actually explaining the mistake I made?

In other words, instead of saying that “logical contradictions are contradictions in the terms you use”, explain to us why you believe these particular questions I’ve asked you are not logical contradictions in the first place.

pro:

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.

Yes. I know.

Now could you explain why you believe these specific examples I’ve asked you are not affirmed and negated.

pro:

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.

I asked you to define these things further…

Define ‘all powerful’.

Define ‘all knowing’.

Define ‘immaterial’.

Define ‘merciful’.

Define ‘good’.

You’ve since refused to actually define these terms further.

In fact, all’s you’ve basically said was that I’ve asked for definitions, and they these definitions were clearly not needed since if I didn’t know what the definitions were-- ie., I couldn’t have concluded that they are contradictory.

This isn’t an answer pro_universal. This is an evasion.

Explain why you believe these specific definitions I’ve asked you to elaborate further on are not affirmed and negated.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

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

sigh

Yes. Now can you explain why this line of reasoning is absurd?

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

What I’m saying is that God defines his own limits-- limits which he himself has revealed to us and we haven’t placed on him.

I’ve been fairly clear on this too.

pro:

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 said that God was good, didn’t you?

If so, can anything be good if it has not been chosen from alongside evil-- ie., making a deliberate choice between good and evil?

pro:

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.

Yes. Actually, you did make such statement about how God is bound by time.

You did make such a contradictory statement when you that God was both all knowing and that he was also eternal.

And if God knows all things and is eternal, then a rational question that one can ask is whether God can even make a choice.

And if God cannot make a choice, then how can God be good?

Likewise, if God cannot be good (since he cannot make a choice) then how can God be merciful?

I’m not making this stuff up pro.

So could you please just answer the questions?

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

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

All that statement does is demonstrate that you do not want to get into an actual debate.

pro:

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

But that’s exactly what you’re doing pro.

pro:

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

Without further elaboration, saying that God is both ‘all powerful’ and ‘all knowing’ is a contradiction too.

Saying that God is both ‘all powerful’ and ‘immaterial’, without further elaboration, is also a contradiction for reasons I’ve already explained.

In fact, all the examples you provided, without further elaboration as I’ve requested already, are very much contradictory in a very real sense which limits God’s ability to act in a non-contradictory fashion.

Are you actually familiar with the law of non-contradiction?

pro:

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.

So according to your 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

No. That’s not true.

Contradictions are not merely linguistic mistakes.

Contradictions do represent actual things.

Contradictions are descriptions of an event that can actually occur.

You’re essentially saying that God can do whatever he wants without limit and that all limitations are basically linguistic mistakes.

But God does represent an actual thing pro – God represents God.

So when you claim that your definition of God does not represent a complete contradiction, you’re actually undermining your own argument because your linguistic definitions of God do represent God himself.

Take a look at your next example…

pro:

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

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

So saying that God cannot become material is not a logical extension of his own immaterial nature-- because no where did God say he could not become material. It’s a restriction that you yourself are apparently claiming God must adhere to in order to be considered God in the first place.

pro:

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

Exactly. And this is exactly what Christianity does regarding the devinely revealed truth regarding the Trinity. Working within the parameters of the given revelation, we’re identifying what makes sense given the language used.

pro:

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.

But real things have characteristics which much be in effect in order for them to be real in the first place.

pro:

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.

Actually, I do understand formal logic pro.

Now stop trying to belittle my requests for you to define your terms further. If you can’t actually do it, that’s fine. But don’t accuse me of not understanding the nature of this logical analysis.

Answer my questions pro. Or step away gracefully.

 

[pro_universal]

Ok, Mr. Ex Nihilo,

Just to clear up this problem, “formal logic” has a formal meaning. I do not think you understand the argument I’m trying to construct. My translation skills are a little rusty, but your posts as far as I can tell contain a series of propositions and statements that, represented, have absolutely zero to do with mine.

Here’s the explanation:

What I’m saying is that God defines his own limits-- limits which he himself has revealed to us and we haven’t placed on him.

The key here is that this is what you are saying. Things that you say cannot, by definition, amount to contradictions in what I say.

You said that God was good, didn’t you?

If so, can anything be good if it has not been chosen from alongside evil-- ie., making a deliberate choice between good and evil?

This is not a logical argument. This is an argument about phenomena out there in the universe, and it will never, under any circumstances, produce a logical contradiction.

Logic has to do with what we define our words to mean.

This argument has nothing to do with definitions.

Hence, it’s very simple: “good means whatever God wills.”

If I define good that way, there is no contradiction. Maybe you don’t agree that good actually means this, but that is another matter, not a logical one.

In other words, instead of saying that “logical contradictions are contradictions in the terms you use”, explain to us why you believe these particular questions I’ve asked you are not logical contradictions in the first place.

Because there’s no negation of any of terms I’ve used. If you can’t provide a negation that comes from one of my terms of another of my terms, you have no contradiction. Not just because I don’t think so, but because it is impossible that you even theoretically could have one without this.

Define ‘all powerful’.

Define ‘all knowing’.

Define ‘immaterial’.

Define ‘merciful’.

Define ‘good’.

Okay, since you’re asking for definitions, I’m presuming you admit you can’t have shown a contradiction. Without definitions, it’s not possible to do this.

all powerful: having the power to do any thing

all knowing: having consciousness of all things

immaterial: Not made of physical parts

Merciful: having the quality of showing mercy.

Good: all that which God wills. (Note that your definition appears to be different…that’s irrelevant to whether or not I can use the word in a way that isn’t contradictory.)

Now, considering that the above terms do not negate each other, I think you should be satisfied with the idea that no contradiction can possibly be drawn from them.

 

[pro_universal]

Continued:

Yes. Now can you explain why this line of reasoning is absurd?

Didn’t you just tell me that you understood formal logic?

An absurd argument is one that can produce contradictions. It’s absurd by definition, as in reductio ad absurdum.

Saying that God is both ‘all powerful’ and ‘immaterial’, without further elaboration, is also a contradiction for reasons I’ve already explained

Well, unless you show what in the definition of “powerful” is directly negated by or negates “immaterial”, I’d be hard pressed to see how you could possibly have come up with a contradiction.

It’s quite impossible to have done this without doing what I mentioned. Ask someone you know who has had some logic training if you don’t believe me.

Contradictions are not merely linguistic mistakes.

Contradictions do represent actual things.

Contradictions are descriptions of an event that can actually occur.

Says who? How do you make a square with three angles only? How about a triangle with four angles?

So when you claim that your definition of God does not represent a complete contradiction, you’re actually undermining your own argument because your linguistic definitions of God do represent God himself.

I’m undermining my own argument how? Coherent language refers to things that might possibly exist. Incoherent language refers to things that by definition cannot exist.

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

We went over this. It is a definitional requirement of having an immaterial God. Hence, it is not a limit, but rather, a recognition that contradictory terms are incoherent. They don’t form thoughts even; they’re just nonsense.

“My dog exists and does not exist.” Read the sentence over and over, and it makes no sense. This is the same situation with “God is immaterial but God is material.”

Refusing to use incoherent sentences in listing powers of God is not a limit. They do not describe anything, and hence, cannot describe a thing that God can’t do.

Actually, I do understand formal logic pro.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that you have no clue what “formal logic” means. This is the source of the strange “contradictions” you’ve claimed to create, even in the absence of contradictory terms.

I suggest you read a primer on the subject so that what I’m saying makes more sense:

tellerprimer.ucdavis.edu/

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ok, Mr. Ex Nihilo,

Just to clear up this problem, “formal logic” has a formal meaning. I do not think you understand the argument I’m trying to construct. My translation skills are a little rusty, but your posts as far as I can tell contain a series of propositions and statements that, represented, have absolutely zero to do with mine.

That’s not true.

First of all, in the most basic sense, formal logic is a set of rules for making deductions that seem self evident. Syllogisms like the following occur in every day conversation.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

As the article notes, logic assumes something cannot be both true and not true. Likewise, it looks only at the truth value of a proposition. It also involves simple relationships between these truth values too.

Determining the truth of a logical expression that contains no quantifiers is a straightforward application of simple rules. In other words, one can use a truth table to evaluate each subexpression starting with those at the root of the expression tree as shown in Table 3.2 here on this website.

If a logical expression, however, contains quantifiers then we need to evaluate a logical relationship over a range of values to determine the truth of the expression.

Here’s my proposition which I presented for you to examine further…
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

What I’m saying is that God defines his own limits-- limits which he himself has revealed to us and we haven’t placed on him.

To this you replied…

pro:

The key here is that this is what you are saying.

Things that you say cannot, by definition, amount to contradictions in what I say.

But the things I say most certainly can, by definition, illuminate the contradictions in what you say.

In fact, this is exactly how one begins to evaluate a logical relationship over a range of values to determine the truth of the expression.

For example, regarding the concept of one’s definition of good, I submitted the following logical relationships for you to consider further…

You said that God was good, didn’t you?

If so, can anything be good if it has not been chosen from alongside evil-- ie., making a deliberate choice between good and evil?

To this, you replied…

pro:

This is not a logical argument. This is an argument about phenomena out there in the universe, and it will never, under any circumstances, produce a logical contradiction.

No.

I’m just beginning to evaluate the logical relationship of your definition of ‘good’ over a range of values to determine the truth of your expression.

And, as with any formal inquiry, to the extent that one cannot actually defend their thesis from these inquiries, it can become more and more evident that the definitions they use certainly are open to logical contradictions which they themselves had not considered yet.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro:

Logic has to do with what we define our words to mean.

Actually, logic, in its most ancient Greek sense, has more to do with how the logos defines reality than with how we define our own words. And to the extent that one’s definition of truth disagrees with the true meaning of reality (the logos of the Stoics), they are effectively engaging in a kind of anti-logos.

Most ancient religions, even if they do not refer to the Spirit of truth as ‘the logos’, most certainly did have a view similar to the idea of a true nature or true form which existed despite other’s misperceptions of it.

pro:

This argument has nothing to do with definitions.

This discussion most certainly does have something to do with definitions-- more specifically categories which yield knowledge by identifying the common qualities of different entities.

In this sense, we naturally flow toward the syllogism, something in which, given two premises, a certain inference necessarily follows. This kind of syllogistic logic is also called predicate logic by the way-- becuase it works by correlating a subject with possible predicates.

Embedded within this logical framework, we also see the nature of deduction and induction, the two sides of the faculty of reason. These are opposed by complementary methods of arriving at sound conclusions.

I’ll come back to this later.

pro:

Hence, it’s very simple: “good means whatever God wills.”

Yes. In fact, it’s so simple that your definition is effectively meaningless. In other words it’s meaningless without further evaluating the logical relationship of your definition of ‘good’ over a range of values to determine the truth of your expression.

pro:

If I define good that way, there is no contradiction.

If you define good that way, then you essentially have nothing substantial to actually compare and contrast your definition against in order to verify if it’s actually consistent with itself.

pro:

Maybe you don’t agree that good actually means this, but that is another matter, not a logical one.

The point is not about whether I agree with your definition or not.

The point is about whether or not you agree with your own definition when you compare it within the logical relationship of the other qualities which you likewise attribute to God.

In other words, your definition of ‘good’ must be examined over a range of values to determine the truth of your expression .

pro:

Because there’s no negation of any of terms I’ve used. If you can’t provide a negation that comes from one of my terms of another of my terms, you have no contradiction. Not just because I don’t think so, but because it is impossible that you even theoretically could have one without this.

You’ve already negated everyone of your own definitions when juxtapositioned against your other definitions pro.

I already explained this to you.

pro:

Okay, since you’re asking for definitions…

Um…I already asked you for these definitions from the beginning of this minor subdiscussion regarding the nature of truth…

pro:

…I’m presuming you admit you can’t have shown a contradiction.

No. You’re presuming too much.

I’m doing exactly what I intended to do from the beginning of this subdiscussion: evaluating the logical relationship of your definitions over a range of values to determine the truth of your expressions.

pro:

Without definitions, it’s not possible to do this.

Amen brother.

 

[pro_universal]

No.

I’m just beginning to evaluate the logical relationship of your definition of ‘good’ over a range of values to determine the truth of your expression.

And, as with any formal inquiry, to the extent that one cannot actually defend their thesis from these inquiries, it can become more and more evident that the definitions they use certainly are open to logical contradictions which they themselves had not considered yet.

continued…

This is a terrible argument. You are making up your own ideas of the concept, and then claiming that they somehow matter to mine.

You can certainly create a logically incoherent argument if you want, but the things you say are irrelevant to what’s contained in my statements.

My statements stand on their own. If you can’t show a contradiction only using my statements, it stands to reason that you haven’t shown that I said something contradictory.

I understand that you’re looking at a logical analysis for the first time here, but seriously…you’ve got to think before you come up with these conclusions about my positions.

 

[pro_universal]

Actually, logic, in its most ancient Greek sense, has more to do with how the logos defines reality than with how we define our own words. And to the extent that one’s definition of truth disagrees with the true meaning of reality (the logos of the Stoics), they are effectively engaging in a kind of anti-logos.

This is completely far fetched and totally irrelevant. The Ancient Greeks are to logic what phrenologists are to psychiatrists.

As for “definition of truth that agrees with the true meaning of reality”, that’s on the level of crystal balls and mistress cleo. You cannot add to a logical argument or detract from it by grabbing things out of the air.

This discussion most certainly does have something to do with definitions-- more specifically categories which yield knowledge by identifying the common qualities of different entities.

Well, that’s your view. My view is very simple on this matter: I can use the terms in a way that’s somewhat believable without contradiction. Maybe you think the universe doesn’t agree with my use of the words, but again, that is not an issue of logic. That’s a completely different issue.

Embedded within this logical framework, we also see the nature of deduction and induction, the two sides of the faculty of reason. These are opposed by complementary methods of arriving at sound conclusions.

The only thing relevant here is deduction. I didn’t make any inductive statements.

Yes. In fact, it’s so simple that your definition is effectively meaningless. In other words it’s meaningless without further evaluating the logical relationship of your definition of ‘good’ over a range of values to determine the truth of your expression.

You do not understand what “range of values” means. Reread the primer, because you are entirely misusing the phrase.

Maybe you don’t like my definitions. That’s fine. But they’re still logically consistent.

Values doesn’t mean “new definitions.”

If you define good that way, then you essentially have nothing substantial to actually compare and contrast your definition against in order to verify if it’s actually consistent with itself.

That’s what a definition is. A statement. If it were a logical argument, well, there’d be an argument instead of just a declaratory statement. Statements are represented by the single letters in that primer, btw.

In other words, your definition of ‘good’ must be examined over a range of values to determine the truth of your expression .

Again, complete and total misunderstanding of what “examined over a range of values” means. You’re not even close.

You’ve already negated everyone of your own definitions when juxtapositioned against your other definitions pro.

Okay, why don’t you list the negations?

I’m doing exactly what I intended to do from the beginning of this subdiscussion: evaluating the logical relationship of your definitions over a range of values to determine the truth of your expressions.

Alright, I’ll give you the answer: “values” means “true” or “false.” It doesn’t mean “different definitions.”

Since I didn’t give you an argument that produces a conclusion, but rather, a list of declaratory statements, the only possible source of contradiction is a bare “yes and no” in the definitions. If you can’t show that, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This is a terrible argument. You are making up your own ideas of the concept, and then claiming that they somehow matter to mine.

You can certainly create a logically incoherent argument if you want, but the things you say are irrelevant to what’s contained in my statements.

My statements stand on their own. If you can’t show a contradiction only using my statements, it stands to reason that you haven’t shown that I said something contradictory.

I understand that you’re looking at a logical analysis for the first time here, but seriously…you’ve got to think before you come up with these conclusions about my positions.

Why don’t you just answer the questions and see where your logic flows?

 

[pro_universal]

Why don’t you just answer the questions and where your logic flows?

What? I did. There wasn’t even a logical argument. All I gave you was a list of independent statements about God, none of which contradicted the others.

There was no “logical argument” in those statements that produced some sort of sought after conclusion. You can conclude anything that’s in the definitions from the list, no more, and no less.