pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

So is the idea of God and metaphysics in general when one contrasts these revelations to the approach of the logical positivist.

But that doesn’t seem to be stopping you from using divine revelation to define characteristics of God, now does it?

pro:

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.

If you’re using classical logic to define the charactersitics of God, then the entire basis of your argument crumbles to the ground unless you allow for divine revelation to provide insight into the very nature of God.

pro:

Well, that’s your view.

It’s not my view. It’s the view of formal logic.

Consequently, since you’ve allowed for divine revelation to inform you on the nature of God, and since you actually have only faith to verify the truth of these Godly characterisitcs, you actually are engaging in a speculation that cannot actually be verified according to the rules of formal logic.

In effect, you are using these rules only insofar as you believe them to be a method whereby you can test the internal consistency of your own claims.

But if you are allowing for that, then you should also be prepared to go one step further examine your own claims in the light of how your claims potentially contradict eath other.

pro:

My view is very simple on this matter: I can use the terms in a way that’s somewhat believable without contradiction.

Define ‘somewhat believable’.

pro:

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 not what I’m saying at all.

What I’m saying is that your claims that these Godly charactersitics are not contradictory is essentially proven false by the fact that your claims do actually appear to contradict each other upon further examination.

pro:

That’s a completely different issue.

No. That’s how formal logic works.

pro:

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

That’s why I said, "I’ll come back to this later. "

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro:

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

As I said before, I’m already familiar with these rules of logic pro.

pro:

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

It has nothing to do with whether I like your definitions or not.

It has everything to do with testing whether your definitions are consitent with each other or not.

pro:

Values doesn’t mean “new definitions.”

And yet your definition of good is so simple that it is indeed effectively meaningless by the standards of logic.

According to many ‘modern’ rules of logic that I’m familiar with, aesthetic judgments are fairly well believed to express mere feelings and are not considered propositions. In other words, they are believed to have no objective validity. In this sense, these kinds of value-judgments are not analytic, and are not verifiable as ‘matters of fact.’

Even still, when one examines the internal consistency of the statements they make, they can argue about the empirical facts on which a value-judgment is based, or about the logical interpretation of empirical facts.

I don’t necessarilly agree with all these points. However, I do agree that your definition of good is 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:

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.

Then compare your statements with each other and see if they are consistent with each other.

pro:

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

Yes. I keep reading your claims here. But I’m not actually reading much by you to refute the questions I’ve asked you.

Are you going to quibble over definitions even as you repeatedly expound on how the rules of logic are to be employed ‘all night’ ‘all night’ long?

Just answer the questions already.

pro:

Okay, why don’t you list the negations?

I already have listed many propositions which potentially negate the claim that your statements are consistent with each other.

You seem to prefer to discuss the nature of logic without actually addressing the valid propositions which I’ve offered for your further consideration.

pro:

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

Great. Now how can God be both ‘all powerful’ and ‘all knowing’ at the same time?

pro:

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.

Let’s go over this again.

If all powerful means having the power to do any thing, then why can’t God become non-powerful?

If all powerful means having the power to do any thing, then why can’t God become a material thing?

If all powerful means having the power to do any thing, they why can’t God choose to not have consciousness of all things?

If all powerful means having the power to do any thing, then can God arbitrarilly chose to not show mercy when mercy is deserved?

If all powerful means having the power to do any thing, then can God choose to forsake good and instead become evil?I can go through each point and list these things in the same alternating rythm.

If immaterial is not made of physical parts, then…

If merciful is having the quality of showing mercy, then…

If good is all that which God wills, then…

 

[pro_universal]

n other words, they are believed to have no objective validity. In this sense, these kinds of value-judgments are not analytic, and are not verifiable as ‘matters of fact.’

Yes, this is quite obvious. You can’t verify something outside of your mind by going outside of your mind either. “Objective validity” as a classification is about 100 years out of date.

Are you going to quibble over definitions even as you repeatedly expound on how the rules of logic are to be employed ‘all night’ ‘all night’ long?

What questions didn’t I answer???

I already have listed many propositions which potentially negate the claim that your statements are consistent with each other.

Then you’re already in error. I didn’t list any propositions, so how on earth can you possibly draw them from what I posted?

Great. Now how can God be both ‘all powerful’ and ‘all knowing’ at the same time?

This is very simple. All knowing: God knows all.

All powerful: God has the power to do all.

See the different words? Power is not know. No definition of “power” or “know” will ever, in any universe, produce a contradiction between the two. They are different words, and different concepts.

Doing does not contradict knowing. I already explicitly answered this for you, too.

If all powerful means having the power to do any thing, then why can’t God become non-powerful?

Because then you would have a syntax error, not a description of a thing. “Why Can’t a triangle have four angles?” doesn’t describe an actual limit; it is a sentence that doesn’t compute.

You might as well type “Why can’t God become omlksx;lsak;jle;jak;kjdf;jak;dfk;jlfdaslj if he’s all powerful?”

That’s just as sensible as what you said.

If all powerful means having the power to do any thing, then why can’t God become a material thing?

If all-powerful were the only definition, he could. But we’re talking about a God who is immaterial and unlimited. See above regarding contradictions.

The rest of your questions do not address contradictions. “Choice” appears nowhere in my original definitions, so it’s not relevant and is a waste of space in an already long conversation.

If immaterial is not made of physical parts, then…
If merciful is having the quality of showing mercy, then…
If good is all that which God wills, then.

What do the conditionals prove? I fail to see a point.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Then you’re already in error. I didn’t list any propositions, so how on earth can you possibly draw them from what I posted?

Then why did you say this before?

pro:

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.

You made several statements which others could contrast to each other in order to see if these was anything contradictory about them.

For example…

pro:

This is very simple. All knowing: God knows all.

But God, by your statements, doesn’t know all.

God doesn’t know how he can give up all his power by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can become a material thing by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can lose consciousness of all things by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can unfairly withhold forgiveness by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can become evil by your definition.

pro:

All powerful: God has the power to do all.

But God, by your statements, doesn’t have the power to do all.

God **doesn’t have the power **to give up all his power by your definition.God **doesn’t have the power **to become a material thing by your definition.God **doesn’t have the power **to lose consciousness of all things by your definition.God **doesn’t have the power **to unfairly withhold forgiveness by your definition.God **doesn’t have the power **to become evil by your definition.

pro:

See the different words? Power is not know.

See how the statements about God are contradictory when they are are contrasted with each other?

pro:

No definition of “power” or “know” will ever, in any universe, produce a contradiction between the two.

Maybe this is how logic works in pro_universal’s universe.

But this isn’t how logic works in the real world.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

They are different words, and different concepts.

But the different words each have diffferent concepts associated with them that, when they are contrasted with each other, overlap with each other to the point that they contradict each other.

pro:

Doing does not contradict knowing. I already explicitly answered this for you, too.

No.

You just explicitly ignored how I clearly explained that doing can (and does) contradict knowing.

A: Knowing is something which is done. B: And in order to do something you have to know how to do it.

pro:

Because then you would have a syntax error, not a description of a thing. “Why Can’t a triangle have four angles?” doesn’t describe an actual limit; it is a sentence that doesn’t compute.

Just like how your statements about God do not compute upon further examination?

My apologies pro. But the way in which you arbitrarilly apply the rules of logic to suit your own whims represents a gross violation of how formal logic is actually employed in the real world.

pro:

You might as well type “Why can’t God become omlksx;lsak;jle;jak;kjdf;jak;dfk;jlfdaslj if he’s all powerful?”

Because stating that God cannot become omlksx;lsak;jle;jak;kjdf;jak;dfk;jlfdaslj doesn’t appear to represent anything which be meaningfully used to described God in any way which can be contrasted to God’s other characteristics.

In other words, saying that God is omlksx;lsak;jle;jak;kjdf;jak;dfk;jlfdaslj is the same as saying that “good means whatever God wills.”

pro:

That’s just as sensible as what you said.

Actually, what I said makes a lot of sense.

You’re the one who is typing omlksx;lsak;jle;jak;kjdf;jak;dfk;jlfdaslj and claming to make sense when doing so.

pro:

If all-powerful were the only definition, he could. But we’re talking about a God who is immaterial and unlimited. See above regarding contradictions.

But see, if God is all powerful, then all of his other characteristics must likewise align and mesh with this all powerful characteristic or else God is left as a contradictory gibbering mass of inconsistent statements.

pro:

The rest of your questions do not address contradictions.

Well…I’m glad you clarified that for us.

“Choice” appears nowhere in my original definitions, so it’s not relevant and is a waste of space in an already long conversation.

If you’re claiming that God knows all things, then you are invoking the question of God’s ability to make a choice.

At the very least, you’re presenting God in such a way that it is effectively impposible for him to actually change his mind-- since he already knows his own future apparently.

So, in effect, you’re basically presenting a picture of God which is more akin to an unconscious yet somehow good force of nature which is apparently incapable of actually rationally making a choice.

In fact, according to your definitions, God may not even have a free-will.

pro:

What do the conditionals prove? I fail to see a point.

They prove that you haven’t really thought through the conditions/characteristics which you’re using to inconsistently describe God’s nature.

 

[pro_universal]

Alright, once again, I’m reading a post here that is puzzling at least from the perspective of logical analysis.

Let’s get first things down first:

Your own ideas about what should or shouldn’t be said about God have zero to do with whether or not my statements are consistent. Absolutely nothing. That’s so basic I can’t explain it any further.

See how the statements about God are contradictory when they are are contrasted with each other?

Funny, but you haven’t shown a single negation. I’m looking over your post, it’s not there.

You’re saying that there are some things God should be, and that he wouldn’t be under my definitions. Maybe so, but that has to do with what you think about God, not what I wrote in my initial statements.

My apologies pro. But the way in which you arbitrarilly apply the rules of logic to suit your own whims represents a gross violation of how formal logic is actually employed in the real world.

Haha, what?? This is just strange now. Formal logic only analyzes language. You can’t do anything else with it. What uh, um, “real world” employment might you be thinking of?

Because stating that God cannot become omlksx;lsak;jle;jak;kjdf;jak;dfk;jlfdasl j doesn’t appear to represent anything which be meaningfully used to described God

Well, that’s exactly what I said. I think you need to reread my post. It doesn’t describe anything at all.

Hence, it doesn’t actually describe something that God can’t do, just like saying “God can’t make a trinagle with four angles” doesn’t describe something that God cannot do.

It’s nonsense speech, no more.

But see, if God is all powerful, then all of his other characteristics must likewise align and mesh with this all powerful characteristic or else God is left as a contradictory gibbering mass of inconsistent statements.

Great, so from the statements I posted, and the definitions I posted, where is that “inconsistent standard”? You have your own ideas about what those words should mean, but that’s irrelevant.

If you’re claiming that God knows all things, then you are invoking the question of God’s ability to make a choice.

Uh, how so?

So, in effect, you’re basically presenting a picture of God which is more akin to an unconscious yet somehow good force of nature which is apparently incapable of actually rationally making a choice.

In fact, according to your definitions, God may not even have a free-will.

Where’s the contradiction between them? You’re highlighting things you don’t like and speculations as to what’s left out.

That’s not contradiction. So where is it?

They prove that you haven’t really thought through the conditions/characteristics which you’re using to inconsistently describe God’s nature.

No, the main problem here is that you had no idea what I meant when I said it was possible to say something logically consistent about God.

You do not know what Logically consistent means. You keep demonstrating this over and over, and I wish you would just sit down and take a second to figure out what I meant by that (by reading the link) before you post another piece.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Alright, once again, I’m reading a post here that is puzzling at least from the perspective of logical analysis.

Then re-read it until you actually understand it.

Your statements about God are full of negations pro.

You can debate this all you want. But I’ve pointed this out clearly enough for you to understand this now.

Is there anything else that we can really debate about that hasn’t already been said before?

 

[pro_universal]

Then re-read it until you actually understand it.

Your statements about God are full of negations pro.

You can debate this all you want. But I’ve pointed this out clearly enough for you to understand this now.

Is there anything else that we can really debate about that hasn’t already been said before?

Well, at least do us the favor of listing the negations.

Which terms in my original definitions are negated?

For example, where is the:

[not] good

or

[not] immaterial

or

[not] all powerful

or

[not] all knowing.

They don’t appear anywhere in your post. Failing that, I can’t possibly see how any read would yield such a contradiction.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You’re saying that there are some things God should be, and that he wouldn’t be under my definitions. Maybe so, but that has to do with what you think about God, not what I wrote in my initial statements.

No. You’re saying that there are some things God should be.

I’m saying that the things that God should be in your opinion are negated by the contradictory statements you’ve made regarding God.

For example, you say that all knowing means that God knows all. But God, by your statements, doesn’t know all.

God doesn’t know how he can give up all his power by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can become a material thing by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can lose consciousness of all things by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can unfairly withhold forgiveness by your definition.God doesn’t know how he can become evil by your definition.This isn’t just a question of language and syntax. These are physical qualities about how you believe God is truly limited to some degree in the real world. And your statements, without further illumination, blatently negate each other when contrasted to each other.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, at least do us the favor of listing the negations.

Which terms in my original definitions are negated?

For example, where is the:

[not] good

or

[not] immaterial

or

[not] all powerful

or

[not] all knowing.

They don’t appear anywhere in your post. Failing that, I can’t possibly see how any read would yield such a contradiction.

sigh

I think Edwin fairly well summed how pointless it appears to debate with you pro. His view in this regard accurately portrays the mental gymnastics you’re apparently willing to engage in in order to avoid the conclusion that your statements about God are full of negations.

Anybody else here agree with Edwin and I that pro is being evasive when his statements concerning God are demonstrated to be inconsistent when contrasted to each other?

 

[amoxoxoma]

sigh

Anybody else here agree with Edwin and I that pro is being evasive when his statements concerning God are demonstrated to be inconsistent when contrasted to each other?

Unequivocally yes. I have read the whole thread. This constant refrain of “reread my post” and the inference that others must be simpletons, is really getting stale. But I refrain from engaging in the debate as I have no “formal” training in logic, merely a college class some 35 years ago. The clear assumption that God can be dissected (let alone understood) through the logical analysis of language is sheer lunacy.

 

[Valke2]

I can’t define God, but I can say things about him that are not contradictory.

For example: God is all powerful and all Knowing.

God is immaterial

God is merciful

God is good.

None of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list \Quote]

Ahh. But if you add “6. God is just.” then you start to get into paradox. Especially if you are going to say, as many do, that God possess the attributes of infinte Justice and infinite mercy.

Personally, contradiction doesn’t bother me. If you don’t have a little paradox in your religion, you aren’t practicing it right.

 

[inJESUS]

sigh

I think Edwin fairly well summed how pointless it appears to debate with you pro. His view in this regard accurately portrays the mental gymnastics you’re apparently willing to engage in in order to avoid the conclusion that your statements about God are full of negations.

Anybody else here agree with Edwin and I that pro is being evasive when his statements concerning God are demonstrated to be inconsistent when contrasted to each other?

chapeau bas :tiphat: to Mr. Ex Nihilo.
Pro’s problem is that he takes things for granted when he shouldn’t because there are sub-layers in each idea. Pro is, willingly or unwillingly, stuck on an X level of reasoning regarding this topic ( no insult intended since he is a reasonable person)

Mr Ex Nihilo,

 

[inJESUS]

pro_universal;1573195:

I can’t define God, but I can say things about him that are not contradictory.

For example: God is all powerful and all Knowing.

God is immaterial

God is merciful

God is good.

None of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list \Quote]

Ahh. But if you add “6. God is just.” then you start to get into paradox.

Especially if you are going to say, as many do, that God possess the attributes of infinte Justice and infinite mercy.

Personally, contradiction doesn’t bother me. If you don’t have a little paradox in your religion, you aren’t practicing it right.
i was thinking exactly like you

 

[Sufi]

Don’t leave. I was just starting to like you.

 

[murtad]

inJESUS;1573343:

Reread my post.

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

The trinity asserts that God really is these three different persons. Your picture analogy depends on how we see the picture, not on the picture itself.

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.

That’s heresy.

Of course, it’s tough to talk about the trinity without going into heretical territory, but that’s because any analysis that is logically consistent is heretical. The orthodox account is irrepairably contradictory.

Three persons of Trinity can be represented by this analogy of seperation of government. We have Executive person, Legistative person, and Judical person. All these three persons are different person, who are all one being. In Aramaic, being is Kyana, while person is Qnoma.

Trinity is a concept where there are 3 persons who rule together in harmony. Tawhid, OTOH, is a dictatorial concept where one autocratic god, Allah governs by himself.

Christianity is Democracy, while Islam is Dictatorship.

Dictatorship is always based on hate, while Democracy is always based on love.

This is why we have to reject the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid, and accept the Christian doctrine of Trinity.

 

[eleonardo]

sigh

I think Edwin fairly well summed how pointless it appears to debate with you pro. His view in this regard accurately portrays the mental gymnastics you’re apparently willing to engage in in order to avoid the conclusion that your statements about God are full of negations.

Anybody else here agree with Edwin and I that pro is being evasive when his statements concerning God are demonstrated to be inconsistent when contrasted to each other?

That’s one thing that kinda annoys me. When they can’t give a good reply, they simply evade and ignore the post entirely. I have seen good responses to his posts completely ignored, only followed by responses to “easier” posts right after. :tsktsk:
Then when I think about it, it stops annoying me, for I know they simply cannot answer them.
My 2cts. I was actually surprised pro isn’t (claiming to be) Muslim. From all previous posts on other threads this seemed so clear to me. This by no means do I mean in a bad way. I’m just describing the undertone of his posts and what “vibe” they gave off. Anyways.
Pax vobiscum!

 

[pro_universal]

Ahh. But if you add “6. God is just.” then you start to get into paradox. Especially if you are going to say, as many do, that God possess the attributes of infinte Justice and infinite mercy.

Personally, contradiction doesn’t bother me. If you don’t have a little paradox in your religion, you aren’t practicing it right.

This is an interesting point, but I think you presume too much about justice and mercy.

I see no reason why perfect justice might not be the same as, if not identical to, perfect mercy. There is nothing about being merciful that requires injustice, even though in many cases, it seems to us that justice is harsh.

 

[pro_universal]

This isn’t just a question of language and syntax. These are physical qualities about how you believe God is truly limited to some degree in the real world. And your statements, without further illumination, blatently negate each other when contrasted to each other.

That’s really just a repetition of the argument above. Talking about God knowing and not knowing some fact is nonsense talk. It is precisely the same sort of thing as a four angled triangle. Try your hand at showing a negation via translating and applying the rules of inference if you can’t see it from what I’ve written.

Overall though, I owe you an apology. I have been way too shrill and impatient with you in this talk, and you have been a much more polite and friendly discussion partner than me.

 

[Valke2]

This is an interesting point, but I think you presume too much about justice and mercy.

I see no reason why perfect justice might not be the same as, if not identical to, perfect mercy. There is nothing about being merciful that requires injustice, even though in many cases, it seems to us that justice is harsh.

But mercy is used to temper justice. If Justice were perfect, there would be no room for mercy, and we’d all be screwed.