pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[pro_universal]

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

I don’t see how that’s necessary to the definition of mercy.

Sometimes Justice is merciful, for example, a prison sentence stopping someone from continuing down a self-destructive path of drug abuse.

Sometimes it is not merciful. But it’s not necessary in the definition of mercy that it temper justice; sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s a fundamentally different notion.

 

[Valke2]

And if infinite mercy is exercised, where is there room for judgment and justice?

 

[Valke2]

I don’t see how that’s necessary to the definition of mercy.

Sometimes Justice is merciful, for example, a prison sentence stopping someone from continuing down a self-destructive path of drug abuse.

Sometimes it is not merciful. But it’s not necessary in the definition of mercy that it temper justice; sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s a fundamentally different notion.

But you are giving me answers based in finite version of justice and mercy. I am talking about the paradox of there being inifinite justice and infinite mercy as attributes of the divine. And we haven’t even discussed infinite control/power vs. free will.

 

[Valke2]

We interupt this conversation to bring you a bit of Talmud:

Because the Lord saw that the world could not stand to be measured by strict justice, He mingled the quality of mercy with that of justice and created the world with both (Gen. R. xii.). In striking contrast to the pessimistic doctrine that the world is the product of mere chance and full of evil, the Midrash boldly states that the world was (or is) a process of selection and evolution: “God created worlds after worlds until He said, ‘This at last pleases Me’”

 

[tequilamac]

I don’t see how that’s necessary to the definition of mercy.

Sometimes Justice is merciful, for example, a prison sentence stopping someone from continuing down a self-destructive path of drug abuse.

Sometimes it is not merciful. But it’s not necessary in the definition of mercy that it temper justice; sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s a fundamentally different notion.

It would seem actually that with God mercy is
justice since we ourselves are not particularly merciful. God’s justice is not the same as our justice- we put limits on it. ten years for htis, beheading or electric chair for that. Since God’s justice is mercy, then His justice and mercy is infinite. It is the same notion not different.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s really just a repetition of the argument above.

No. Actually, it’s not.

Pointing toward the extreme limits of these physical characteristics reveals the limitations of the claims you’ve presented to describe God.

In post number 311 you presented some of your definitions of God’s nature and specifically said…

pro:

None of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

…but, as I’ve already clearly demonstrated, several times now, each of the five things you’ve listed do, in fact, constitute a strong contradiction when contrasted with each other.

pro:

Talking about God knowing and not knowing some fact is nonsense talk.

No. It’s the kind of logical reasoning which should lead someone to infer that God is not all-powerful.

More to the point, it should lead someone to re-examine their assumptions and instead infer that God is the most powerful.

In other words…

All-powerful =/= Most Powerful.

pro:

It is precisely the same sort of thing as a four angled triangle.

No.

It’s rejecting the premise that God is all-powerful and it’s precisely the same sort of thing as saying that God is the most powerful.

It’s rejecting the premise that God is all-knowing and it’s precisely the same sort of thing as saying that God is the most knowledgeable.

It’s rejecting the premise that God is immaterial and it’s precisely the same sort of thing as saying that God is the most immaterial.

It’s rejecting the premise that God is forgiving and it’s precisely the same sort of thing as saying that God is the most forgiving.

It’s rejecting the premise that God is good and it’s precisely the same sort of thing as saying that God is the most good– or more specifically, the most holy.

In other words, it’s precisely the same sort of thing as saying that God is not the capricious and unlimited God of Kant’s logical impossibilities.

But it is precisely the same sort of thing as saying that God is the Most High exactly as Judaism conceives him since the beginning.

Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.

pro:

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.

Why should I?

I’ve already demonstrated that all five things you listed above do constitute a strong contradiction with each other.

I’ve also already done the work for you and redefined your own statements about God so that they are more logically consistent with each other too.

If you want me to proceed to show you the negation via translating and applying the rules of inference, I will do so if you so desire.

I’m just getting warmed up to God’s Spirit again.

pro:

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.

Thank you.

Hopefully we can continue this sub-discussion forward more positively.

 

[pro_universal]

Since this is a thread about logical contradictions at this point, I’d like you to do just this:

If you want me to proceed to show you the negation via translating and applying the rules of inference, I will do so if you so desire.

Because the rest doesn’t really address the claim I made.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Since this is a thread about logical contradictions at this point, I’d like you to do just this…

…Because the rest doesn’t really address the claim I made.

You forgot this part…
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

I’m just getting warmed up to God’s Spirit again.

…I think this part does address the claim you made.

Now, before I proceed further, do you actually admit that the five things you listed above constitute a contradiction with each other?

 

[pro_universal]

Now, before I proceed further, do you actually admit that the five things you listed above constitute a contradiction with each other?

No. It is not possible to have shown a contradiction without showing the terms and their negations, so that’s what I’m waiting for.

If you have the negations, let’s see them. If you don’t, you don’t have a contradiction.

The fact that you don’t like my premises has absolutely zero to do with whether or not my argument is sound

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No. It is not possible to have shown a contradiction without showing the terms and their negations, so that’s what I’m waiting for.

If you have the negations, let’s see them. If you don’t, you don’t have a contradiction.

The fact that you don’t like my premises has absolutely zero to do with whether or not my argument is sound

Hmmm…

Alright, let’s try this a different way here.

You seem to understand how logic works, correct?

In fact, it seems to me that you’ve claimed many times in this thread that others here, including myself, do not actually understand formal logic.

So how about we reverse this process and we sit here as your students so that you can teach us about the proper usages of logic?

In other words, could you show us some examples – some real life examples – of contradictions by showing us some terms and their negations?

And could you also explain to us why these examples you give are considered contradictions?

We’d like to learn from you pro_universal.

 

[pro_universal]

Hmmm…

Alright, let’s try this a different way here.

You seem to understand how logic works, correct?

In fact, it seems to me that you’ve claimed many times in this thread that others here, including myself, do not actually understand formal logic.

Well, I apologized for that also. Or at least I meant to. Maybe you do, but if so, you should have no trouble taking five lines and drawing out the contradictions in a somewhat recognizable fashion. The fact that you do not do this says either that you don’t know how, or that there aren’t any.

In other words, could you show us some examples – some real life examples – of contradictions by showing us some terms and their negations?

And could you also explain to us why these examples you give are considered contradictions?

We’d like to learn from you pro_universal.

It is quite simple in principle. If you have a term A, and your premises also contain not A, then you have a contradiction.

Let me give you an example, extremely simplified:

1. God is immortal.
2. If God can die, then God is not immortal.
3. God can die.

I’ll symbolize that as:

1. God is immortal= I
2. If God can die, then God is not immortal= D-> ~I
3. God can die= D

By means of modus ponens and 3. and 2., we can conclude:

~I.

But number 1. is I.

Therefore, the premises allow us to conclude (via conjunction):

I and ~I.

That is a contradiction. It is a contradiction because you affirm and negate the same premise.

Do you get it? A contradiction is very simple…“yes” and “no” at the same time for the same subject.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, I apologized for that also. Or at least I meant to. Maybe you do, but if so, you should have no trouble taking five lines and drawing out the contradictions in a somewhat recognizable fashion. The fact that you do not do this says either that you don’t know how, or that there aren’t any.

But’s that what I been doing pro.

Let’s now take a look at your example…

pro:

It is quite simple in principle. If you have a term A, and your premises also contain not A, then you have a contradiction.

Yes. Exactly.

pro:

Let me give you an example, extremely simplified:

1. God is immortal.
2. If God can die, then God is not immortal.
3. God can die.

I’ll symbolize that as:

1. God is immortal= I
2. If God can die, then God is not immortal= D-> ~I
3. God can die= D

But this is working from one’s defintion of immortality and death.

First of all, we both agree (I think?) that someone’s soul does not cease to exist in spirit when they die.

Therefore, if someone physically dies, this does not mean they cease to exist. It does not mean that their consciouness has ended. It only means that they are now perceiving their life from a different perspective.

In other words, physical death is not immortal death. As such, they’ve never actually died. They’ve only begun a new life.

Admittedly, you’ve noted that this example you’ve provided is extremely simplified. But I think the point still stands that one’s definitions of ‘death’ also plays a big part of how they peceive ‘immortality’.

pro:

By means of modus ponens and 3. and 2., we can conclude:

~I.

But number 1. is I.

Therefore, the premises allow us to conclude (via conjunction):

I and ~I.

That is a contradiction. It is a contradiction because you affirm and negate the same premise.

Yes. This is what I’ve been talking about since the beginning.

pro:

Do you get it? A contradiction is very simple…“yes” and “no” at the same time for the same subject.

Yes. I think I get it.

1. God is all powerful.
2. If God has limits, then God is not all powerful.
3. God has limits.
4. God is all knowing.
5. If God lacks knowledge, then God is not all knowing.
6. God lacks knowledge.
7. God is immaterial.
8. If God is materal, then God is not immaterial.
9. God is material.
10. God is forgiving.
11. If God damns others, then God is not forgiving.
12. God damns others.
13. God is good.
14. If God lacks good, then God is not good.
15. God lacks good.

Is there anything wrong in my formulae here?

 

[pro_universal]

But’s that what I been doing pro.

Let’s now take a look at your example…

Yes. Exactly.

But this is working from one’s defintion of immortality and death.

First of all, we both agree (I think?) that someone’s soul does not cease to exist in spirit when they die.

Therefore, if someone physically dies, this does not mean they cease to exist. It does not mean that their consciouness has ended. It only means that they are now perceiving their life from a different perspective.

In other words, physical death is not immortal death. As such, they’ve never actually died. They’ve only begun a new life.

Admittedly, you’ve noted that this example you’ve provided is extremely simplified. But I think the point still stands that one’s definitions of ‘death’ also plays a big part of how they peceive ‘immortality’.

Yes. This is what I’ve been talking about since the beginning.

Yes. I think I get it.

1. God is all powerful.
2. If God has limits, then God is not all powerful.
3. God has limits.
4. God is all knowing.
5. If God lacks knowledge, then God is not all knowing.
6. God lacks knowledge.
7. God is immaterial.
8. If God is materal, then God is not immaterial.
9. God is material.
10. God is forgiving.
11. If God damns others, then God is not forgiving.
12. God damns others.
13. God is good.
14. If God lacks good, then God is not good.
15. God lacks good.

Is there anything wrong in my formulae here?

Yes. It’s completely wrong because none of the premises except for 1, 1, 1, (first “1s” in the list) actually come from my posts.

You can’t add your own premises to someone else’s argument in order to conclude that the argument is invalid. That would be you making an invalid argument, not the other person.

In order to say that I’ve said something contradictory, every single premise in your list has to come directly from what I wrote. If there’s even one word that doesn’t come from what I wrote, you’re not representing my argument correctly.

I’m sorry to say it, but the above is wrong on every single count. I do not think you could be more wrong if you were trying to be so about my arguments.

To recap, you will have to show, based on my statements and definitions, a contradiction. That means leaving out your own assumptions, or your own premises, entirely. (There’s a thing called conditional assumption, but I doubt you know how to do that, and it won’t help you much with my definitions anyway…and the proof will be longer than three steps.)

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes. It’s completely wrong because none of the premises except for 1, 1, 1, (first “1s” in the list) actually come from my posts.

You can’t add your own premises to someone else’s argument in order to conclude that the argument is invalid. That would be you making an invalid argument, not the other person.

In order to say that I’ve said something contradictory, every single premise in your list has to come directly from what I wrote. If there’s even one word that doesn’t come from what I wrote, you’re not representing my argument correctly.

I’m sorry to say it, but the above is wrong on every single count. I do not think you could be more wrong if you were trying to be so about my arguments.

To recap, you will have to show, based on my statements and definitions, a contradiction. That means leaving out your own assumptions, or your own premises, entirely. (There’s a thing called conditional assumption, but I doubt you know how to do that, and it won’t help you much with my definitions anyway…and the proof will be longer than three steps.)

You’re joking right?

 

[pro_universal]

You’re joking right?

No, I’m quite serious.

You can’t prove that someone else’s argument is invalid by adding your own premises to it. That makes it your creation, not the other person’s.

Your increduility is really…well, uh, totally puzzling. I can’t for the life of me figure out how it is you understand anything about logic, yet don’t understand that fundamental point.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

No, I’m quite serious.

You can’t prove that someone else’s argument is invalid by adding your own premises to it. That makes it your creation, not the other person’s.

Your increduility is really…well, uh, totally puzzling. I can’t for the life of me figure out how it is you understand anything about logic, yet don’t understand that fundamental point.

Then teach me more…

Does God have limits?

Does God lack knowledge?

Does God have material?

Does God damn others?

Does God lack goodness?

 

[pro_universal]

Then teach me more…

Does God have limits?

Does God lack knowledge?

Does God have material?

Does God damn others?

Does God lack goodness?

There’s no need to answer these questions to say something non-contradictory about God.

“God is one and God is fully mysterious”, I could just say that and be done.

Do you understand now that it’s possible to say things about God that aren’t contradictory?

 

[Valke2]

So, why did you leave the Catholic Church? Were you religious to begin with? I always wonder what it takes for someone who is raised with a religous background to decide to change their religion.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

There’s no need to answer these questions to say something non-contradictory about God.

The reason why you’re refusing to answer these questions is precisely because you already know that your logic is going to crumble before your eyes the moment you actually commit yourself to something more substantial than what you’re claiming.

In fact, using your own statements, I’ve already fairly well infered (over and over again) that your statements are contradictory. And, more to the point, the reason why you insist that each statment must be taken on it’s own merit without reference to the other statement is precisely because you know that each statement does contradict the other statement.

Spit and sputter all you like pro_universal.

You’re not convincing me or anyone else here of anything you’re claming right now.

Like I said before, I’ve read some of meedo’s posts. I may not agree with him. But like how he presents logical arguments for what he beleives. I’ve been considering some of the posts by Sufi too. While I think his arguments are weaker than meedo’s, I still see a sincere effort to present his faith without recourse to claims that no one else is as smart as he is.

If you sincerely want to be a Muslim and learn how to debate like the more lucid followers of Islam, then go read through their posts-- learn and understand why I respect their posts more than yours and get back to me when you’re done.

As sala’amu alaikum.

“God is one and God is fully mysterious”, I could just say that and be done.

Translation: omlksx;lsak;jle;jak;kjdf;jak;dfk;jlfdasl j

In other words, since you once again insist that these statments cannot be contrasted to each other without further elaboration, and since you once again refuse to actually elaborate on these statements due to their contradictory nature, you wouldn’t be saying much of anything which can be critically evaluated aside from statements of faith without any solid foundation in logic.

pro:

Do you understand now that it’s possible to say things about God that aren’t contradictory?

Yes. I do understand this. In fact, that’s exactly what I’ve done already many times in this thread because I’ve always understood that it’s possible to say things about God that aren’t contradictory.

Claiming that God is all-powerful is contradictory.
Claiming that God is the most powerful is not contradictory.

Claiming that God is all-knowing is contradictory.
Claiming that God is the most knowledgeable is not contradictory.

Claiming that God is immaterial is contradictory.
Claiming that God is the most immaterial is not contradictory.

Claiming that God is forgiving is contradictory.
Claiming that God is the most forgiving is not contradictory.

Claiming that God is good is contradictory.
Claiming that God is the most good is not contradictory.

So, regardless of whatever you’ve claimed, you have said things about God which are contradicted by your other claims.

In other words, what you have done is consistently made claims which quite clearly do contradict each other on many levels-- and fled toward the argument that no one else understands logic as clearly as you do when you are proven wrong.

Your performance in this thread, by the way, is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI was warning about when one divorces reason from faith. Intellectually speaking, people who divorce reason from faith are invariably compelled to either violently oppose clear reason, or perhaps censor it blatently, or else outright flee from the argument when they can’t actually defend their thoughts in a lucid and coherant manner.

 

[pro_universal]

Valke2,

I was religious, and actually enjoyed Church and CCD. I used to write off the problems as mystery, but the more I lost faith in the authority of the Church, the less I was able to do that.

In a nutshell, the Church is fully human to me now. It is made of mostly good people trying to do good things, but that doesn’t make it the vessel of divine light on earth. I don’t choose to ascribe divine authority to it anymore.