pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex-Nihilo i respect your patience . Pro is turning round the bush. You explained your position many times, gave many examples yet Pro does not adress them. His responses are getting shorter and shorter.

If he’s insisting that I have to employ formal logic in order to mathematically break down his statements and display the contradictions I’ve already demonstrated in the form of a negative, it would seem to me that he’s rapidly fleeing back into his hole.
Rikki-Tikki-Tavi:

Rikki-tikki knew that he must catch her or all the trouble would begin again. She headed straight for the long grass by the thornbush, and as he was running, Rikki-tikki heard Darzee still singing his song of triumph. But Darzee’s wife was smarter. She flew off her nest as Nagaina came along and flapped her wings at Nagaina’s head. Nagaina only lowered her head and went on. But the instant’s delay let Rikki-tikki catch up to her, and as she plunged into the hole where she and Nag used to live, his little white teeth were clenched on her tail.

Rikki-tikki went down with her, and very few mongooses–however wise and old they may be–care to follow a cobra into its hole. It was dark in the hole, and Rikki-tikki never knew when it might widen and give Nagaina room to turn and strike at him.

It’s been close to 17 or 18 years since I’ve read this stuff, so I’m going to briefly review a few things regarding formal logic and prayerfully open my heart to the Spirit’s prompting lest I make a serious mistake.

But pro, whether you realize this or not, I’ve got you by the tale right now.

And, like it or not, I am coming down that dark hole with you.

pro:

I’m going to ask again, and I have to admit, I’m becoming frustrated by your run-around:

Where is your promised logical analysis of my statements, proving that they are contradictory?

If you won’t give one, please explain why.

Be careful what you ask for pro.

I suspect it might take some time for us to go entirely through all statements you eventually present.

But by the time we’re done with you, pro, we will have demolished every argument and every pretension that you set up against the knowledge of God. And we will take captive your every statement and make it obedient to Christ.

Better polish off your formal knowledge pro. I know I am.

And the saints are on my side on this one.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Oh, and by the way, before we get started, there’s this matter here…

Yes you did. That’s how this whole discussion started.

No. I never said that it was impossible to make statements about God that weren’t contradictory.

This is what I said pro…

pro:

pro_universal, could you give me a non-contradictory definition of God?

I ask because I’ve yet to hear one that is not contradictory, and yet many people who believe in God, including you and me, seem to have no problem rationally believing in God notwithstanding any contradictory charateristics that God himself might possess.

First of all, where exactly did I say it was impossible to provide a non-contradictory definition of God?

Exactly how does ‘not hear’ equal ‘impossible’?

Second of all, why would I present to you several different definitions of God that I felt really were non-contradictory if I was claiming that it was impossible to provide a non-contradictory definition of God?

That doesn’t make any sense.

Furthermore, when I said I’ve yet to hear one that is not contradictory, I meant within this thread.

Read through this thread pro and read through it carefully.

How many non-contradictory definitions of God did you actually see in this thread pro?

I know I didn’t see any at first-- at least, I did not not initially see any within this thread at first.

Did you?

Furthermore, in a general sense, there are contradictory elements within each person’s faith here in this thread.

But these contradictory elements do not necessarilly mean that they are going to give up their faith because they don’t understand every minute inner working of their God.

I don’t. Do you?

More to the point, we’re all fairly well willing to acknowledge that we have enough evidence to convince us that what we believe is true unless something powerful is clearly presented which clearly indicates something otherwise.

It’s called faith.

So, to restate this again, no.

I never said that it was impossible to make statements about God that weren’t contradictory.

In fact, I’ve offered many non-contradictory statments of God within this thread.

You can even test them youself if you like using formal logic.

And no, I’m not interested in seeing how you do it. So don’t post it here. Keep it to yourself. Do it on your own at your own place and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

 

[pro_universal]

If he’s insisting that I have to employ formal logic in order to mathematically break down his statements and display the contradictions I’ve already demonstrated in the form of a negative, it would seem to me that he’s rapidly fleeing back into his hole.

Well, what’s really happening is that I have no clue where these claimed contradictions are. Since I can’t see them in your writing, I have to ask for something more clear.

But pro, whether you realize this or not, I’ve got you by the tale right now.

I’d be more worried if you had me by the tail.

Be careful what you ask for pro.

I suspect it might take some time for us to go entirely through all statements you eventually present.

But by the time we’re done with you, pro, we will have demolished every argument and every pretension that you set up against the knowledge of God. And we will take captive your every statement and make it obedient to Christ.

Better polish off your formal knowledge pro. I know I am.

And the saints are on my side on this one.

I’ve carefully and explicitly asked for this several times now. It’s not going to be that difficult, but the answer isn’t going to be the one you want, I’ll tell you that right now. The Saints aren’t going to modify the rules of the universe to help you.

 

[Valke2]

And Valke’s claim depended on finity versus infinity, something that if you want to tackle with logic…well, good luck.

I thought that this discussion was based on certan agreed upon assumptions. One, that God is endless, and His attributes are infinite. Two, that we are finite. If, as you have implied, logic fails when discussing finite vs. infinite – and it does (which is why I said paradox/contradiction is the result when viewed from the finite perspective [the only perspective we have]), then “logically” we have to conclude that logic is of limited value in understanding the Divine. Logic can take you to the shore of reason, but we need something else to bring us to the awareness of what lies beyond that shore.

 

[Valke2]

However, that does not mean that you cannot logically conclude, that if two attributes are infinite and they stand for different and sometimes opposing views, i.e., justice and mercy, then to say that there is infinite justice and mercy is a contradiction.

 

[pro_universal]

I thought that this discussion was based on certan agreed upon assumptions. One, that God is endless, and His attributes are infinite. Two, that we are finite. If, as you have implied, logic fails when discussing finite vs. infinite – and it does (which is why I said paradox/contradiction is the result when viewed from the finite perspective [the only perspective we have]), then “logically” we have to conclude that logic is of limited value in understanding the Divine. Logic can take you to the shore of reason, but we need something else to bring us to the awareness of what lies beyond that shore.

I agree completely, and your point about identity between the attributes is a good one. If we want to say that God is infinitely just and merciful, at some level, justice and mercy must be the same thing.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, what’s really happening is that I have no clue where these claimed contradictions are.

No. What’s really happening is that you’re claiming that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

pro:

Since I can’t see them in your writing, I have to ask for something more clear.

And you honestly can’t see how claiming that God is all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time is contradictory?

pro:

I’d be more worried if you had me by the tail.

We’ll see in the end what happens.

pro:

I’ve carefully and explicitly asked for this several times now.

No. You’ve fled into the request for me to produce a statement which displays the negatives even though you already know that you’ve negated your own claims.

I don’t see you doing this to prove that the characteristics of Trinity contradicts itself. Not once have I seen you offer this to anyone. And yet you claim to have done exactly that without presenting any formal logic to back it up.

pro:

It’s not going to be that difficult…

It does appear that getting you to list a complete set of statements by which I can contrast them within a formal logic sentence is difficult.

pro:

…but the answer isn’t going to be the one you want…

Exactly. The answer will have nothing to do with what either one of us want. It will, however, reveal the negations you’ve been denying within your own theology all along when we’re finished.

pro:

I’ll tell you that right now.

Yeah. You’ve been busy telling us many things pro-- and you’ve completely refused to back them up each and every time.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

pro:

The Saints aren’t going to modify the rules of the universe to help you.

While I think God can perform miracles to suspend the known conditions which back up the known laws of the universe, and while I think the prayers of a righteous man can do exactly this, that’s not actually what I’m talking about.

I’m not talking this kind of “word magic” where reality itself is warped because of some mistake in the formula we present.

I’m talking about your confusion in thinking that logic cannot be used to negate your theological statements even as you claim it can be used to negate the Trinity.

It’s assinine.

I think most here realize that I readilly agree that logic provides a great methodology for discovering new found truths. In fact, scientific enlightenment itself seems to be firmly rooted within the successes of the scientific method when the rules of logic are properly applied.

I would, however, be wary of allowing the scientific method to be the answer to our search for truth in and of itself.

Do we draw near to God via the scientific method?

As far as I understand, the early Christians who developed it, although very spiritual in their desire to know and love God, were not content with the answer “God did it”.

Early pioneers of the method, such as Francis Bacon, were concerned with determining the basic principles of reality in so far as to separte God from superstitious preconceived notions – so that God may be glorified.

With the rise of logical positivism, however, the shift in scientific methodolgy seems to have switched from determining “principles that God set forth” to “God cannot be known via science”.

In effect, logical positivism has discharged the argument concerning the existence of God altogether. They assert the methodology of science as being the only valid path to reliable knowledge – which effectively disregards any concept of revelation from God.

And this is pretty much the direction you’re going in pro.

In the scientific method, however, we do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we free our minds only through experimental methods which are designed eradicate presuppostitions concerning our knowledge of nature.

The fullness of such positvism, however, is not union with God. It is actually more similar to the Buddhist concept of Nirvanna, insofar as knowledge of the physical world is concerned – so that the scientifically minded effectively achieves a state of perfect indifference with regards to preconceived notions concerning nature.

Any faith in God, however, seems to come from revelation – faith begins at the point where the scientific method ends – and it is tested further from there.

The proper application of the scientific method within a generally Judeo-Christian perspective effectively wittles away false idols so that the believer can then focus their heart within a deeper filial relationship with God’s divine love.

And you’re not actually doing this at all.

In fact, I’m not sure what you’re doing when you claim that logic cannot be used to prove your own theological statements wrong even as you yourself claim it can be used to negate the Trinity.

But, don’t worry, I’ll be back to demonstrate your negations for you using formal logic.

It’s only a matter of time now.

 

[pro_universal]

And you honestly can’t see how claiming that God is all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time is contradictory?

I’m not sure how many times I’ve been asked this question already, but the answer has been “absolutely not” every time.

No. You’ve fled into the request for me to produce a statement which displays the negatives even though you already know that you’ve negated your own claims.

Wait a minute, you offered this a long time ago. You said “I’ll do it if you want, do you want me to?” Then I said yes. Yet you’re still stalling. Why don’t you just do something, anything, that lays the contradictions bare?

I don’t see you doing this to prove that the characteristics of Trinity contradicts itself. Not once have I seen you offer this to anyone. And yet you claim to have done exactly that without presenting any formal logic to back it up.

I did that a long, long time ago on this thread. I used the Athanasian creed as a basis, and you can see it if you scroll back to about page 3 I believe.

It does appear that getting you to list a complete set of statements by which I can contrast them within a formal logic sentence is difficult.

Huh? What is a “complete” set of statements? Where are you getting this demand from?

Exactly. The answer will have nothing to do with what either one of us want. It will, however, reveal the negations you’ve been denying within your own theology all along when we’re finished.

Then please, let’s see it.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I have a quick question for y’all, why does anyone care why Pro left? His soul, his choice. The best thing we can do is pray for him.

 

[pro_universal]

In effect, logical positivism has discharged the argument concerning the existence of God altogether. They assert the methodology of science as being the only valid path to reliable knowledge – which effectively disregards any concept of revelation from God.

And this is pretty much the direction you’re going in pro.

No, that’s not the direction I’m going in. Not even close to it. I haven’t once doubted that there is a God on these threads. Nor have I made any statements that could even be arguably cast as the products of a positivist outlook.

Any faith in God, however, seems to come from revelation – faith begins at the point where the scientific method ends – and it is tested further from there.

I agree completely. We are in accord on this point.

And you’re not actually doing this at all.

Well, I certainly don’t believe in the trinity anymore.

But, don’t worry, I’ll be back to demonstrate your negations for you using formal logic.

It’s only a matter of time now.

I’ll be happy to see it, but I don’t see how this is going to happen.

 

[Ella]

I dunno why you don’t see the contradictions Pro because Mr. Ex posted a nice list of them.

For instance:

" Define ‘all powerful’.

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

 

[pro_universal]

I dunno why you don’t see the contradictions Pro because Mr. Ex posted a nice list of them.

For instance:

" Define ‘all powerful’.

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

I already did.

all poweful: having the power to do any thing.

The stone question is a red herring, because it presumes a theoretical limit to God’s power. It’s really asking: “Can God be not all powerful and all powerful at the same time?”

The answer is no. The fact that there is nothing God cannot do, including lifting an infinitely heavy stone, is not a limit on his power. Attempting to turn limits into examples of powers is a semantics game, not a real argument that God cannot be all powerful.

 

[inJESUS]

Mr. Ex-Nihilo, i think you must focus on examples of contradictions.

 

[tequilamac]

I thought that this discussion was based on certan agreed upon assumptions. One, that God is endless, and His attributes are infinite. Two, that we are finite. If, as you have implied, logic fails when discussing finite vs. infinite – and it does (which is why I said paradox/contradiction is the result when viewed from the finite perspective [the only perspective we have]), then “logically” we have to conclude that logic is of limited value in understanding the Divine. Logic can take you to the shore of reason, but we need something else to bring us to the awareness of what lies beyond that shore.

An excellent answer and I agree completely. On your later post though, I disagree. There is no contradiction in infinite justice and mercy since with God they infinitely combine as one attribute which is charity. The attribute one is addressing when discussing any aspect of God’s behavior is charity and this is the only attribute He has. Mercy and justice, hope and trust, faith and perseverance- these are all actions within an attribute. The attribute is charity- the enclosed qualities are actions. so where is the contradiction? We can say God is infinitely charitable which means He exercises infinite actions of justice and infinite actions of mercy I think we might have a semantics problem. Mercy, justice, hope, faith, trust etc are all action oriented and based. The attribute that catalyses them is charity which of course with God is infinite and non contradictory.

Which of course is why the great theologian St. John tells us in Heaven justice, mercy, faith and hope, trust etc no longer remain, only charity remains in Heaven. Because charity is the significant attribute, the others are not attributes, but actions. Therefore there is never a contradiction in God.

 

[Valke2]

An excellent answer and I agree completely. On your later post though, I disagree. There is no contradiction in infinite justice and mercy since with God they infinitely combine as one attribute which is charity. The attribute one is addressing when discussing any aspect of God’s behavior is charity and this is the only attribute He has. Mercy and justice, hope and trust, faith and perseverance- these are all actions within an attribute. The attribute is charity- the enclosed qualities are actions. so where is the contradiction? We can say God is infinitely charitable which means He exercises infinite actions of justice and infinite actions of mercy I think we might have a semantics problem. Mercy, justice, hope, faith, trust etc are all action oriented and based. The attribute that catalyses them is charity which of course with God is infinite and non contradictory.

Which of course is why the great theologian St. John tells us in Heaven justice, mercy, faith and hope, trust etc no longer remain, only charity remains in Heaven. Because charity is the significant attribute, the others are not attributes, but actions. Therefore there is never a contradiction in God.

Ok. I don’t agree that Justice + Mercy = Charity. But let me also say that I think whenever we discusse the attirbute(s) of God, we are simply doing our best to conceptualize an aspect of God that is experienced in certain situations. God doesn’t really have attirbutes that we can understand, I think. Because attributes imply a limitation. And I think we agree that God is limitless, even if we can’t really understand what limitless is.

I believe our respective religions are our best faith efforts to understand God, or at least what God wants of us.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I already did.

No. Actually, you didn’t.

First of all, if this is what you offered for formal logic…

all powerful: having the power to do any thing.

…and…

a) …if this is all you are offering as a definition for all powerful…

…and…

b) …if you’re refusing to offer anything beyond this definition…

…and…

c) …if you’re refusing to allow anyone else to add anything beyond this definition…

…then…

d) …this defintion is so limited in scope as to say nothing of practical logical use to us.

And this is exactly what I’ve been saying all along pro.

The definition you’ve provided, and the way you’ve framed it, is functionally powerless to actually describe God in any meaningful way that we can compare and contrast against other statements you’ve provided.

In other words, I have noticed, since you made this claim, that both the rules of debate about the issue (as well as the word statements themselves) were defined in such a way as to rule out objections from the start.

However, if we’re allowed to ask further questions about this (in order to examine your statement further), then contradictions will come to light that you are currently not allowing to come to light by virtue of the limited amount of information provided and allowed.

So when I read this statement…

pro_universal:

all powerful: having the power to do any thing.

…I’m not reading a synthetic statement. I’m reading an analytic statement.

In other words, you’re making an analytic statement, which is considered a priori because it does not depend on experience. In this sense, the truth depends purely on the meaning of their terms. For example, I could say the analytic statements, “All bachelors are unmarried,” or even “2 + 2 = 4”. However, since they tell us nothing new, they are of no practical use.

Some do hold to the opinion that certain statements in logic and mathematics are themselves a priori – or analytic – since they depend on the laws of their discipline. For example, consider Willard van Orman Quine. He’s considered perhaps the most eminent analytical philosopher in the spirit of the logical positivists of the late 20th century (with a good dose of pragmatism mixed in). Willard questioned the absolute distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. He basically argued that since the definitions of the words are changeable, imprecise, and disputed, the “synonomy” required to make a true analytic statement may be impossible to achieve.

But, to be fair, I was hoping, however, that you would have produced a synthetic statement, something which is considered posteriori because it does depend on experience. For example, I could say the synthetic statements, “All bachelors live alone,” or even “Two of my children are girls and two are boys”. As stated above, they require “outside evidence” to determine the “truth of their validity”.

Admittedly, since some do insist that these rules “presuppose” the truth of the axioms that support them, this leads us to “posteriori” knowledge. In the case of a posteriori knowledge, we are dealing with knowledge that comes only after direct experience.

This is related to the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments – the difference between statements whose truth depends purely on the “meaning of their terms” and those that require “outside evidence” to determine the “truth of their validity”.

In regards to your statements, what outside evidence are you allowing to determine the truth of their validity?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

And to tackle this from the other angle (which will later meet with the conclusion), let’s review this again a little differently…

I already did.

No. Actually, you didn’t.

pro:

all poweful: having the power to do any thing.

If power = the ability or capacity to perform or act effectively

And if do = To perform or execute

And if thing = An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

Then can God do a sinful thing?

Actualy, can God do any sin at all?

pro:

The stone question is a red herring, because it presumes a theoretical limit to God’s power.

No. Actually, it presumes that God can theoretically limit himself but he can never exceed himself. God is his own limit.

There is a big difference between presuming a theoretical limit to God’s power and presuming that God can theoretically limit himself.

Here’s the difference between 1) presuming a theoretical limit to God’s power in contrast 2) presuming that God can theoretically limit himself.

1. Claiming that God is all-powerful is contradictory.
2. Claiming that God is the most powerful is not contradictory.
3. Claiming that God is all-knowing is contradictory.
4. Claiming that God is the most knowledgeable is not contradictory.
5. Claiming that God is immaterial is contradictory.
6. Claiming that God is the most immaterial is not contradictory.
7. Claiming that God is forgiving is contradictory.
8. Claiming that God is the most forgiving is not contradictory.
9. Claiming that God is good is contradictory.
10. Claiming that God is the most good is not contradictory.

pro:

It’s really asking: “Can God be not all powerful and all powerful at the same time?”

No. It’s admitting that even God has self-imposed limits.

So, for example, if I say that God can do nothing evil and all things good, I am admitting that God’s only weakness is that he cannot sin.

pro:

The answer is no. The fact that there is nothing God cannot do, including lifting an infinitely heavy stone, is not a limit on his power.

Can God be a Trinity?

Can God die?

Can God sin?

Can God be the devil in disguise?

If you’ve answered no to any of these questions, then you are admitting that there are things that God cannot do.

In my own opinion, God can be a Trinity and God can die-- but God cannot sin and God cannot be the devil in disguise either.

pro:

Attempting to turn limits into examples of powers is a semantics game, not a real argument that God cannot be all powerful.

I disagree for all the above reasons already stated.

But if attempting to turn limits into examples of powers is a semantics game, then you really don’t have a real argument that God cannot be a Trinity either.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’m not sure how many times I’ve been asked this question already, but the answer has been “absolutely not” every time.

The answer is “absolutely not” only because you’ve restricted and framed the argument in such as way so as completely ignore any attempt to turn your analytic statement into a synthetic statement.

I’ve been trying to explain this to you in ‘common language’ that everyone here can understand (without getting into the technical terms employed within logical analysis) for some time now.

But let’s actually begin to unravel the definition of contradiction more carefully now as we proceed to eventually display the contradictions within your statements. This information will serve as a primer before we actually come to the logical sentence will outlines your own negations.

Ultimately, if we’re talking about logic in general, then we’re talking about the branch of philosophy that deals with the rules of correct reasoning.

In this sense, most work within the field of logic deals with a form of reasoning called an argument.

An argument consists of a set of statements called premises.

These presmises are followed by another statement called a conclusion.

If the premises support the conclusion, the argument is correct.

If the premises do not support the conclusion, the argument is incorrect.

pro:

Wait a minute, you offered this a long time ago. You said “I’ll do it if you want, do you want me to?” Then I said yes. Yet you’re still stalling. Why don’t you just do something, anything, that lays the contradictions bare?

I am.

Now let’s move into deductive and inductive arguments for the sake of clarity in this discussion.

As you already know pro, deduction and induction are actually two sides of the “faculty of reason.” They are, in essense, opposed but complementary methods of arriving at sound conclusions.

---

In the case of the deductive argument, it is valid when the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. When the conclusion does not necessarilly follow from the premises, the deductive argument is invalid.

In the case of deduction, based on its latin root, we see that it proceeds in the the direction of “leading from”. It forms the basis of “classical logic.” From what I’ve gathered, deduction starts with a “universal” – a general truth or hypothesis – and leads to knowledge of a “particular” instance of it.

The classic form of deductive reasoning is the syllogism, in which a necessary conclusion derived from two “accepted” premises. If the initial premises of the deductive statement are “accurate”, it is considered virtually infallible.

However, deduction is considered a purely mental process independent of experience. Deduction can also fairly easily be manipulated by providing or revealing only those elements that will support a given conclusion.

---

In the case of the inductive argument, it is more of less probably true on the basis of the premises. Because the conclusion does not necessarilly follow from the premises, however, an inductive argument is not usually deductively valid. This is to say, an inductive argument may be correct or incorrect.

In the case of induction, based on its latin root, we see that it proceeds in the the direction of “leading in”. It is the foundation of the “scientific method.” Induction begins with the “particular” (or “existent”) and moves to the universal – a “generalization” that accounts for other examples of the same category or class.

Induction relies on observation and experimentation to determine not a “certainty” but a “high probablity”. This is to say, knowledge from induction is always conditional, since the universal itself can never be definitely proved through induction. It’s advantage it that, although less definitive, it is generally more useful (since it can generate new information rather than simply exploring aspects of existing knowledge).

If one starts believing the inducted idea, however, there’s a tendency to filter out any data that doesn’t fit it (and it doesn’t actually get verified).

pro:

I did that a long, long time ago on this thread. I used the Athanasian creed as a basis, and you can see it if you scroll back to about page 3 I believe.

Do you mean this?

If so, then no you haven’t.

I’ll be coming back to this point tonight.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Do you mean this?

If so, then no you haven’t.

I’ll be coming back to this point tonight.

Since you haven’t disagreed with this, and since I’ve given you plenty of time to disagree, let’s examine this further…

pro:

I’m taking this from someone else, but I can’t remember where I saw the formulation exactly like this:

1. God is Jesus
2. God is the Father
3. God is the Holy Spirit
4. Jesus is not the Father
5. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit
6. The Father is not Jesus
7. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
8. The Holy Spirit is not Jesus
9. The Holy Spirit is not the Father
10. There is only one God.

If there’s a way to get a more textbook example of a contradiction, I’d like to see it.

How about…

1. Claiming that God is all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time…

and…

1. Insisting that this statement requires no outside evidence to determine the truth of its validity…

even though…

1. You already know that analytic statements are considered a priori since they do not depend on experience…

because…

1. You already know that analytic statements tell us nothing new and they are of no practical use…

and then you…

1. Treat your analytic statement in a way very similar to a synthetic statement…

by…

1. Insisting that the outside evidence around this analytic statement, such God’s qualities of being immaterial, merciful and good, determines the truth of its validity…

and…

1. Treat your analytic statement as if it were something that is considered posteriori because it does depend on experience…

therefore…

1. Concluding that outside evidence you provided surrounding this anaytic statement determines the truth of its validity…

and…

1. Utterly ignore the fact that this analytic statement you provided depends purely on the meaning of its terms?

---

In short, why do you present an analytic statement and present it such a way that it appears as if you’re claming it’s akin to a synthetic statement even though you already know that this statement is actually the opposite of how you’re presenting it?

If there’s a way to get a more textbook example of a contradiction, I’d like to see it.