pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[pro_universal]

.

Well, I saw lots of typing, but none of these promised demonstrations that what I said was illogical.

Saying that God is mysterious is not contradictory or even unreasonable.

Saying that God is immortal but that he died is contradictory, and to my mind, is not reasonable. At the very least, we have to all agree that such a teaching is exceedingly confusing.

 

[tequilamac]

Well, I saw lots of typing, but none of these promised demonstrations that what I said was illogical.

Saying that God is mysterious is not contradictory or even unreasonable.

Saying that God is immortal but that he died is contradictory, and to my mind, is not reasonable. At the very least, we have to all agree that such a teaching is exceedingly confusing.

Yes that is a sticking point for many people. Because they cannot accept that God the Son died and resurrected they reject the whole thing. And will not be resurrected themselves. And this is too bad. I try to look it as an analogy. I was having a baby. My baby was stillborn. I was told by every national expert in the field that I could not have any children period. Everyone gave up. I gave up for three weeks. Very depressing three weeks. Then I shook it off and said nothing is impossible to God. And I prayed very hard. A year later my son was born alive.

Or: a man begins a small business on a wing and a prayer. He works very hard and the business still goes belly up. He starts a new one but this time has no decent credit for a loan. This business also goes belly up. After a while after all his friends and neighbors have abandoned him, he abandons himself and says I cannot be a small business owner. A few weeks later he shakes it off, prays hard and a year later is a millionaire at his own business.

A woman has terminal lung cancer. She is admitted to the hospital with spreading tumors to her liver. The family signs a DNR. The daughter insists treatment begin immediately. The family and the doctors don’t want to do it. The woman has already been before admission revived from a cardiac arrest once already and as I said before has a dnr. They insist she will not live past 24 hours. The daughter keeps looking until she finds a doctor willing to treat her mother. The doctor begins aggressive treatment while the family plans the funeral. A year later after many chemos and radiation treatments, the woman is in complete remission. Two years after that she is fondling her first grand child. She dies several years later of a stroke. True story.

Whenever hope, ideas, charity or people die and are revived, this is a minor example of what is going on with Christ. God died. God resurrected. God resurrected because He so loved us. He wants us to resurrect with him.

Osama bin Laden has a dream. Complete dominance of Islam and complete respect of Allah on Islamic terms. For this he is willing to keep going against all odds. No matter how many people of his own are killed, no matter what hardship they suffer, he continues. No matter how defeated he just keeps coming back. He does not understand where the grace comes from that fills him with hope and persistence. He believes it comes from Allah and his version of God that requires dominance. He does not know that all hope, all persistence no matter the odds and failures in the name of God comes from Christ. Therefore he is dangerous to Christians. He does not know resurrection. But God’s grace spills out of the Church and all over the world. There are many people in the world to day doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons. Osama is filled with hope, zeal for the glory of God, persistence. These are good things and they come from Christ. But Osama knows Christ not therefore he has all the wrong reasons and it comes to evil.

St. Teresa of Avila said once that the path to God consisted of a whole lifetime of experiencing little deaths and resurrections.

But many people, such as yourself pro universal, who do not understand hope, death and resurrection, simply throw up their hands and say it makes no sense that God died. For the rest of us, it makes perfect sense. If God had not died and resurrected, none of us would be inspired to get up in the morning. All would be simply to hopeless and depressing. Without failure there can be no success. Without despair there is no hope. Without grief and agony there is no love and joy. All would be a bland grayscape.

What is a miracle pro? A miracle is God showing us an example of himself. A miracle always proves God died and God rose and God ascended. In a way we can grasp.

 

[exoflare]

Good job on those last few posts, Mr. Ex!

 

[Valke2]

What is a miracle pro? A miracle is God showing us an example of himself. A miracle always proves God died and God rose and God ascended. In a way we can grasp.

And for those of us who do not believe in Jesus, what is a miracle to us? It is still proof of the divine mystery, the ineffable presence of God.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, I saw lots of typing, but none of these promised demonstrations that what I said was illogical.

Yes. I’ve read a lot of typing on your part too. But I’m not really reading anything on your part which demonstrates any superior understanding of logic on your part either.

pro:

Saying that God is mysterious is not contradictory or even unreasonable.

I’ve never said that saying that God is mysterious was contradictory or even unreasonable. I’ve only stated that making this statement doesn’t tell us anything of value which can be evaluated with other statements in order to test the logical validity of this statement.

In other words, once again, you are essentially proclaiming a ‘statement of faith’ which simply canot be tested with other claims precisely because you refuse to contrast them with your other statements of faith.

To the extent that the statement ‘God is mysterious’ reveals your own beliefs regarding the divine, I’ll certainly respect it and even accept it. But to the extant that this statement that ‘God is mysterious’ can be tested with other statements you’ve made, it reveals nothing of logical value which can be tested according to your own faith statements.

You said before that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list. However, claiming that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial, forgiving, and good all at the same time is contradictory-- and I’ve clearly pointed this out to you over and over again pro.

I’ve even went further and offered you a way to reconcile these contradictions by modifying your statements slightly-- which is exactly what logic demands when faced with a logical contradiction.

And yet, in response to this, you’ve irrationally regressed into this odd habit of demanding that each statement must be taken on it’s own value without contrast to each other-- therefore contradicting your own claim that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

pro:

Saying that God is immortal but that he died is contradictory, and to my mind, is not reasonable. At the very least, we have to all agree that such a teaching is exceedingly confusing.

As I already explained to you, this is working from one’s defintion of immortality and death.

First of all, do we both agree with each other that someone’s soul does not cease to exist in spirit when they physically die?

If so, then it needs to be stressed that 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. More to the point, despite physical death of the body (which never saw corruption by the way), God has never died.

You can claim that God being spiritially immortal but physically dying is contradictory and not reasonable. But this claim you’ve made is a statement of faith on your part and not something which you’ve logically infered.

Even human beings are immortal as far as their soul is concerned-- and yet I don’t see you reversing this argument to claim that human beings are divine because their souls are immortal.

I’m honestly not sure why you’re stressing the things you’re stressing pro. As usual, your arguments are lop-sided to the point of not really making any sense at all.

Look, you can even claim that we must all agree with you that such a teaching is exceedingly confusing. I don’t agree with you that it is exceedingly confusing. But, even if we gave you this provision, we still need to stress that this conclusion only reveals the limits of our own understanding of God and not any real limits on God himself.

In other words, is not a conclusion based on one’s full access of logic. It is precisely because the ‘language’ you insist on using – **by blending and conflating terms which do not necessarilly need to be confused with each other **-- leads you to this conclusion.

Logic is not about throwing out ‘blanket statements’ which must be accepted at face value without contrasting them to other statements of faith pro. Logic is also not about being unflinching and steadfastedly believing despite the evidence to the contrary.

Logic is about reasonably modifying one’s statements, admitting the limits of our statements when necessary, in order to accomodate old knowledge in light of the newly discovered knowledge.

And, to the extent that these revelations are manifested, we do need to apply clear logic when infering the degree which each statement can be verified in contrast to the other statements made.

Without that, there is no logic being applied.

 

[tequilamac]

And for those of us who do not believe in Jesus, what is a miracle to us? It is still proof of the divine mystery, the ineffable presence of God.

Yes and what Jesus does is show us the absolute eternity of God and the absolute limitlessness of His love. When God died and God rose He opened for us the door to the ultimate miracle which is life and death. Before Christ, all was limited by death including our perceptions of God. We received all through God and He watched over our affairs. But somehow God’s saving actions stopped at our deaths. Now with Jesus we see God also has complete control over life and death. Now we see God is not limited only to sending us manna in the desert or assisting us with our enemies but also overcomes death itself.

 

[pro_universal]

I’ve even went further and offered you a way to reconcile these contradictions by modifying your statements slightly-- which is exactly what logic demands when faced with a logical contradiction.

Wait, so first you offered to show me which terms are negated in my five statements, and then you claim you already did it? What?

Where are the negations? Let’s see precisely which term also has “not [term x]” from list. You keep claiming you did this, but you coming up with other ideas about what my definitions should be, and then saying “see, that’s a contradiction” without even showing the contradiction, is not proof. It’s certainly not logic.

And yet, in response to this, you’ve irrationally regressed into this odd habit of demanding that each statement must be taken on it’s own value without contrast to each other-- therefore contradicting your own claim that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

Huh? I asked for a logical analysis showing that my statements had contradictions. That means all of them. You didn’t do that, you just talked about “evaluating them over a range of values”, then offered to show me the negations if I wanted, and then…claimed you showed contradictions, without showing the negations.

If God has never died, Catholic theology is false. It is explicit on the point: God died on the cross.

I’m honestly not sure why you’re stressing the things you’re stressing pro. As usual, your arguments are lop-sided to the point of not really making any sense at all.

What am I stressing here? You challenged me to say something about God that wasn’t contradictory. I did. Now you’re calling foul when I ask you to show where these claimed contradictions are?

Logic is not about throwing out ‘blanket statements’ which must be accepted at face value without contrasting them to other statements of faith pro.

That’s actually exactly what it is. It’s a type of mathematics. You assume the premises, then see what you can derive from them. That doesn’t tell you if the premises are all true, it just tells you that the argument is logically coherent (or not). But that’s exactly what logic is.

Logic is about reasonably modifying one’s statements, admitting the limits of our statements when necessary, in order to accomodate old knowledge in light of the newly discovered knowledge.

That would be logic colloquially as the equivalent of “good, reasonable, etc etc.” That’s clearly not what I mean by the term , and I have told you so many times.

Without that, there is no logic being applied.

I’m certainly not seeing any yet. But you’re welcome to start.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

First you say that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list. Then, when I explain to you how each of the five things on your list contradict each other, you demand that each statement must be taken on it’s own value without contrast to each other-- therefore contradicting your own claim that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

In other words, the only reason why you’re not allowing these statements to contradict each other is precisely because you simply refuse to allow each statement to be contrasted to each other.



What you’re presenting as an rational argument is the very definiiton of contradictory nonsense pro.

Do you actually want to discuss the nature of something being considered contradictory or not?

 

[pro_universal]

First you say that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list. Then, when I explain to you how each of the five things on your list contradict each other, you demand that each statement must be taken on it’s own value without contrast to each other-- therefore contradicting your own claim that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

Except you didn’t explain this. We went over that, remember? Adding your own premises in does not constitute showing a contradiction in someone else’s argument.

In other words, the only reason why you’re not allowing these statements to contradict each other is precisely because you simply refuse to allow each statement to be contrasted to each other.

Huh? Please do contrast them. That’s what I was asking you to do. Show me the negations in each term…you making up your own definitions and adding premises that go with them is not contrasting my claims. That’s making up your own argument.

Do you actually want to discuss the nature of something being considered contradictory or not?

What did I miss here? What was unclear about my explanation of what is/is not a contradiction?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Wait, so first you offered to show me which terms are negated in my five statements, and then you claim you already did it? What?

No. You contradicted yourself when you claimed God is all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial, forgiving, and good all at the same time.

i.e., you contradicted yourself.

You said before that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list. However, claiming that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial, forgiving, and good all at the same time is contradictory-- and I’ve clearly pointed out why this so to you over and over again pro.

pro:

Where are the negations? Let’s see precisely which term also has “not [term x]” from list. You keep claiming you did this, but you coming up with other ideas about what my definitions should be, and then saying “see, that’s a contradiction” without even showing the contradiction, is not proof. It’s certainly not logic.

Your attempts to explain the nature of logic to me are starting to remind me of the coaches plan to win in the Waterboy…

Coach Klein (pro-universal): “The quarterback. Two receivers line up to the left, one to the right. There’s a flanker lined up to the left behind the quarterback.”

Bobby (Mr. Ex Nihilo): “Oh, okay.”

Coach Klein (pro_universal): “He gives the ball-- No, he doesn’t-- He doesn’t get the ball. The receiver goes all the way over there to the left. Once the quarterback has the ball, he fakes to the left. No. He fakes to the right. He doesn’t fake. He thinks about faking. He pretends to fake.”

pro:

Huh? I asked for a logical analysis showing that my statements had contradictions.

So what? I’ve asked you for a list of properties/characteristics about God which didn’t contradict each other.

In other words, you were answering my question pro.

I wasn’t answering yours.

I was asking questions in regards to your answers and comparing the charactistics on the list to see if they did indeed not contradict each other.

But they they do contradict each other.

Are you really not understanding what I’m asking you for?

pro:

That means all of them. You didn’t do that, you just talked about “evaluating them over a range of values”, then offered to show me the negations if I wanted, and then…claimed you showed contradictions, without showing the negations.

Um…yeah I did.

First you say that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list. Then, when I explain to you how each of the five things on your list contradict each other, you demand that each statement must be taken on it’s own value without contrast to each other-- therefore contradicting your own claim that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

In other words, the only reason why you’re not allowing these statements to contradict each other is precisely because you simply refuse to allow each statement to be contrasted to each other.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

If God has never died, Catholic theology is false. It is explicit on the point: God died on the cross.

If God has never been all-pwerful, then your theology is false. It is explicit on the point: God is all-powerful.

If God has never been all-knowing, then your theology is false. It is explicit on the point: God is all-knowing.

If God has never been forgiving, then your theology is false. It is explicit on the point: God is forgiving.

If God has never been good, then your theology is false. It is explicit on the point: God is good.

If God has never been mysterious, then your theology is false. It is explicit on the point: God is mysterious.

Do you want me to continue on with this?

pro:

What am I stressing here? You challenged me to say something about God that wasn’t contradictory. I did.

No you didn’t. You said five things about God that contradicted each other. The you denied there was a contradiction precisely because you refused to compare them to each other.

pro:

Now you’re calling foul when I ask you to show where these claimed contradictions are?

No. I’m calling the Lord’s mongoose against your serpentine usage of logic.

pro:

That’s actually exactly what it is. It’s a type of mathematics. You assume the premises, then see what you can derive from them. That doesn’t tell you if the premises are all true, it just tells you that the argument is logically coherent (or not). But that’s exactly what logic is.

Yes. I know.

And the five (now six?) points that you’ve presented are logically incoherent.

pro:

That would be logic colloquially as the equivalent of “good, reasonable, etc etc.” That’s clearly not what I mean by the term , and I have told you so many times.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about to be honest.

pro:

I’m certainly not seeing any yet. But you’re welcome to start.

I’ve already finished long ago by telling you the end from the beginning.

 

[pro_universal]

Mr. Ex,

Okay, look at post 383…you said “if you want me to translate and show the contradiction, I will.”

I’m taking you up on your offer. Let’s see, based only on my own statements, where the contradiction is.

The problem with your list of syllogisms is that you used premises which appeared nowhere at all in my definitions, and which could not be derived by any rule of inference from my definitions.

So, like you offered, let’s see that argument for contradictions…translating it will just make it more clear, and obvious that you are not making any errors.

Since you seem confident in your abilities with formal logic and seem to be convinced you showed a contradiction, you should have no problem doing this…identify which of my terms become what symbol, then show me the contradiction.

 

[Valke2]

You can’t attribute two infinite attributes to an infinite being without eventually running into a contradiction. If something is infinite it doesn’t leave room for anything else. Since there is another infinite something, you have to concede contradiction. At the same time, from the perspective of the inifinite divine, there is no contradiction. It is only from a finite position that we preceive contradiction.

Now go outside and play.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex,

Okay, look at post 383…you said “if you want me to translate and show the contradiction, I will.”

I’m taking you up on your offer. Let’s see, based only on my own statements, where the contradiction is.

The problem with your list of syllogisms is that you used premises which appeared nowhere at all in my definitions, and which could not be derived by any rule of inference from my definitions.

So, like you offered, let’s see that argument for contradictions…translating it will just make it more clear, and obvious that you are not making any errors.

Since you seem confident in your abilities with formal logic and seem to be convinced you showed a contradiction, you should have no problem doing this…identify which of my terms become what symbol, then show me the contradiction.

meh…

You’re the teacher here in this thread pro.

Apparently, according to you, I don’t understand nearly anything about logic. Either that, or, again according to you, I’ve never actually read anything about logic before I came across this thread.

Here now, let’s review some of your more polite innuendo so far since I asked the questions I did in this post…

pro:

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.

There was also this…

pro:

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

and this…

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.

and this…

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/

and this…

pro:

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.

Oh…and after your apology, you’ve since typed this…

pro:

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.)

and this…

pro:

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

and this…

pro:

Well, I saw lots of typing, but none of these promised demonstrations that what I said was illogical.

So yeah. I get it.

Your arrogance appears to be rather remarkable considering how much you claimed against me so far in this thread.

No. If you think that you can explain this to me in a clear and concise fashion without insulting me in the process, then please do so.

Otherwise, please don’t waste my time.

m’kay?

 

[Ella]

Mr Ex, that was darn brilliant. My hat’s off to you sir.

 

[tequilamac]

You can’t attribute two infinite attributes to an infinite being without eventually running into a contradiction. If something is infinite it doesn’t leave room for anything else. Since there is another infinite something, you have to concede contradiction. At the same time, from the perspective of the inifinite divine, there is no contradiction. It is only from a finite position that we preceive contradiction.

Now go outside and play.

So you are saying God cannot be all knowing and all loving at the same time? He has to be one or the other but not both? He cannot be all mercy and all justice at the same time? These are infinite attributes and you are saying he cannot have two infinite attributes at the same time? Why not? If the opposite of what He is does not exist, how could two infinite attributes contradict each other? Irrational. If you want to hold Him to that standard the issue is immediately and easily resolved by simply claiming God is infinite charity for under charity all His other attributes are included. So you could simply say He is infinite charity which is love, mercy, justice knowledge, wisdom etc. and there is no contradiction. Also for the sake of infinite charity God died but more importantly overcame death for us as He is infinite charity. What contradiction? Find it.

 

[Valke2]

So you are saying God cannot be all knowing and all loving at the same time? He has to be one or the other but not both? He cannot be all mercy and all justice at the same time? These are infinite attributes and you are saying he cannot have two infinite attributes at the same time? Why not? If the opposite of what He is does not exist, how could two infinite attributes contradict each other? Irrational. If you want to hold Him to that standard the issue is immediately and easily resolved by simply claiming God is infinite charity for under charity all His other attributes are included. So you could simply say He is infinite charity which is love, mercy, justice knowledge, wisdom etc. and there is no contradiction. Also for the sake of infinite charity God died but more importantly overcame death for us as He is infinite charity. What contradiction? Find it.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we, as finite beings cannot comprhend a concept of contemporaneous infinite mercy and justice. I’m saying to have two infinite attributes results in a paradox, but only because as finite beings, we cannot comprehend endlessness. I’m not holding God to finite standards.

 

[inJESUS]

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.

.

 

[inJESUS]

Yes. I’ve read a lot of typing on your part too. But I’m not really reading anything on your part which demonstrates any superior understanding of logic on your part either.

I’ve never said that saying that God is mysterious was contradictory or even unreasonable. I’ve only stated that making this statement doesn’t tell us anything of value which can be evaluated with other statements in order to test the logical validity of this statement.

In other words, once again, you are essentially proclaiming a ‘statement of faith’ which simply canot be tested with other claims precisely because you refuse to contrast them with your other statements of faith.

To the extent that the statement ‘God is mysterious’ reveals your own beliefs regarding the divine, I’ll certainly respect it and even accept it. But to the extant that this statement that ‘God is mysterious’ can be tested with other statements you’ve made, it reveals nothing of logical value which can be tested according to your own faith statements.

You said before that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list. However, claiming that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial, forgiving, and good all at the same time is contradictory-- and I’ve clearly pointed this out to you over and over again pro.

I’ve even went further and offered you a way to reconcile these contradictions by modifying your statements slightly-- which is exactly what logic demands when faced with a logical contradiction.

And yet, in response to this, you’ve irrationally regressed into this odd habit of demanding that each statement must be taken on it’s own value without contrast to each other-- therefore contradicting your own claim that none of the five things listed above constitute a contradiction with any other in the list.

As I already explained to you, this is working from one’s defintion of immortality and death.

First of all, do we both agree with each other that someone’s soul does not cease to exist in spirit when they physically die?

If so, then it needs to be stressed that 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. More to the point, despite physical death of the body (which never saw corruption by the way), God has never died.

You can claim that God being spiritially immortal but physically dying is contradictory and not reasonable. But this claim you’ve made is a statement of faith on your part and not something which you’ve logically infered.

Even human beings are immortal as far as their soul is concerned-- and yet I don’t see you reversing this argument to claim that human beings are divine because their souls are immortal.

I’m honestly not sure why you’re stressing the things you’re stressing pro. As usual, your arguments are lop-sided to the point of not really making any sense at all.

Look, you can even claim that we must all agree with you that such a teaching is exceedingly confusing. I don’t agree with you that it is exceedingly confusing. But, even if we gave you this provision, we still need to stress that this conclusion only reveals the limits of our own understanding of God and not any real limits on God himself.

In other words, is not a conclusion based on one’s full access of logic. It is precisely because the ‘language’ you insist on using – **by blending and conflating terms which do not necessarilly need to be confused with each other **-- leads you to this conclusion.

Logic is not about throwing out ‘blanket statements’ which must be accepted at face value without contrasting them to other statements of faith pro. Logic is also not about being unflinching and steadfastedly believing despite the evidence to the contrary.

Logic is about reasonably modifying one’s statements, admitting the limits of our statements when necessary, in order to accomodate old knowledge in light of the newly discovered knowledge.

And, to the extent that these revelations are manifested, we do need to apply clear logic when infering the degree which each statement can be verified in contrast to the other statements made.

Without that, there is no logic being applied.

:tiphat: :tiphat: :clapping:

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You can’t attribute two infinite attributes to an infinite being without eventually running into a contradiction. If something is infinite it doesn’t leave room for anything else. Since there is another infinite something, you have to concede contradiction. At the same time, from the perspective of the inifinite divine, there is no contradiction. It is only from a finite position that we preceive contradiction.

Now go outside and play.

I actually took your advise and did go outside today with the boys to play soccer. We got a bit muddy in the rain, but we had fun.

Coming back to the main point, you are exactly right Valke2. One cannot attribute two infinite attributes to an infinite being without eventually running into a contradiction.

You know that and I know that and even pro_universal knows that.

But that’s not what pro_universal is asking for.

He wants me to construct a sentence in formal logic which clearly outlines the negations as he’s set forth from his statements. In other words, he wants me to ‘translate’ his statements into a logical sentence equivalence much like a mathematical formula (the person in the link that pro provided seems to call it a ‘transcription’ which, admittedly, I hadn’t heard before reading this thread).

Now, to be fair, it’s been a long time since I’d read up on formal logic. Having read through the link he provided more carefully, I now actually do understand what pro_universal’s been asking for.

And, to this extent, he’s somewhat right. I’ve been partially approaching this from the perspective of sound reasoning and not really answering some of his questions regarding formal logic.

continued…