I disagree. I think that the heart of the matter revolves around perspective. If I wish to watch my livingroom tv, it is a bit lopsided in judgment to try to do so from my back yard behind the barn.
Perspective is an extremely important aspect of any investigation, and the wrong one will result in a skewed understanding.
It’s possible that a wrong perspective might result in a skewed understanding, yes. That is why in philosophy (because we are not primarily doing revelatory Theology here) we shouldn’t assume an interpretation of the Bible as the conclusion… simply because our interpretation of the Bible might be wrong. God gave us an intellect to use as well (not saying you aren’t using yours).
I say it’s a very real proposition. You say it’s nonsense. How do you find the truth? Do we simply suspend logic? It would appear that you do.
It shouldn’t appear that way. I made an argument for why those specific “propositions” aren’t propositions by way of entailing a contradiction; you have yet to counter this by a reasonable argument other than “my interpretation of Scripture says different” (Bringing in Scripture isn’t necessarily a bad thing to do, and not saying that we absolutely shouldn’t go there… but my argument still stands as it is compatible with Scripture and requires a proper counter).
What’s “nonsense” is to suspend logic. Logic dictates…
Sure. But as you can surely see, logic was employed in my argument; an argument you haven’t tried to counter other than Scripture (which isn’t to say that this is wrong, just that my argument does fit with an interpretation of Scripture).
that if you have free will, that you can MAKE CHOICES.
You can only choose something that is real. Nonsense doesn’t correspond to a real proposition. I’ve shown that by way of a contradiction a few special cases are actually nonsense; I still await a proper counter.
This is the ONLY WAY that we can know what God’s character is like, because the Biblical record regarding these issues are incomplete. Therefore, we MUST use logical, heuristic processes to make a proper, reasoned doctrine of God’s attributes.
And that is what is going on in my argument; I still await a proper counter.
See, there you go watching the living room tv from the back yard!
From my perspective, I see that he hasn’t suspended logic…
Who said he suspended logic? And the propositions from my argument are there so you can freely engage them and provide a response. He did not do so; he provided a dogmatic response very very late in the “game”. Hopefully he would not have done so if he actually read all the posts and was up to speed on the discussion; it’s common courtesy.
, and simply wishes to add his “two cents” to the forum. Nothing wrong with that…unless their “perspective” is not shared by you.
There is something wrong with that if you don’t read what others have posted. I’ll admit perspective does influence arguments… but that card shouldn’t be played here to discredit my arguments (I could tell you the same exact thing). Please engage my arguments, at least so you can point out where I went wrong in my thinking.
So would you agree to this?:
If there were specific “propositions” that were in reality nonsense, it would be meaningless to choose them (How can you choose something you cannot “point” to? Explain).
If you cannot see the truth in this claim, then I don’t know where to go from here as it seems obvious to me.
My argument (and many others) shows why the omnipotency contradiction is not a contradiction without comprimising the traditional Christian view of God (Don’t worry it does not make God any less powerful, in fact how can it if it is true?). We have tried to show where your position breaks down; In my opinion, to go anywhere from here we need to at least agree on the point above. Please don’t take offense.
ciao,
Michael
But, you can’t make reality, contrary to whatever it is that you believe.