V
vera_dicere
Guest
Just calling a spade a spade, I’m not in the business of sugar coating things to spare peoples’ feelings.
- Status
G
greylorn
Guest
Where have you been lurking? This thread needs an infusion of straight-up thought.
Would you pass along the Chapter and Verse for the above quote?
Actually, our brains are ingeniously engineered clumps of dirt. Forget their analytical or conceptual skills; those are properties of “soul”, not of brain. But the brain is an effective information gathering, filtering, and sorting device. When one uses it as a tool, it is a superb tool. Those who attempt to use their brain as a source of intelligence and consciousness produce slightly better results, on a good day, than a chimpanzee might generate.
But what are your thoughts re: the thread’s theme? Do you accept the Omnipotency Contradiction?
G
greylorn
Guest
How does one “bump up” an entity defined as infinite in all respects? Add a billion ticks?
Infinity plus a billion (or any other quantity) equals infinity.
I’m curious about your last sentence. What do you mean by, "it would be more “proper.” " Is life like a formal dinner? If so, what of those who cannot afford tuxedos and evening gowns?
N
Numinous
Guest
Thus, the Medievals, in their conceptual Model of the universe, posited that God, being the Prime Mover, does not so much set the universe in motion as the universe moves in response to God. Being Omnipresent, God does not move (I refuse to use the word cannot because it is a word fraught with assumptions), but he moves the universe, or rather, the universe moves in its love for its Creator.
S
Shike
Guest
Fair enough questions.
By “bump up” I mean giving glory to God, rather than denegrading humans we should praise God; or perhaps also conforming our concept of God with reality given the possibility that our concept is deficient in some way.
By ‘proper’ I only mean that giving glory to God is more proper, since He deserves all our praise (even though He doesn’t need it).
good questions.
And for those who cannot afford tuxedos or evening gowns, I recommend talking to a priest.
A
agangbern
Guest
Oh, so you think you know much of the principles of logic.
Surely you knew whom I was referring to as the Virgin who conceived and bore the Child. Now, with your logic, you mentioned artificial insemination to prove that it was not impossible that the Virgin conceived and bore the Child. How great that logic really is! You want to tell me that Mama Mary must have undergone artificial insemination!
You are right, maybe one of us is not accustomed to logical thought.
N
Numinous
Guest
Wait. Pray. Ask for patience, understanding, and charity. Then post.
A
agangbern
Guest
What are you talking about? Did I ever say that I would make a 3-sided rectangle and present it to a mathematics journal? How did you arrive to that conclusion? Is that the way human logic goes?
A
Agripa
Guest
He is after a hit of peyote whilst camping under the stars in the Arizona desert. I guarantee that.
A
agangbern
Guest
"grannymh:
Making fun of Him hu?He is after a hit of peyote whilst camping under the stars in the Arizona desert. I guarantee that.
A
Agripa
Guest
It might have been better worded, but he is right - we cannot know God nor understand God - any attempt merely humanizes God and ascribes human attributes to God (Him, Father, Son, Ruler, etc.) but really, whatever or wherever God is, all we can do is accept that reality. However, it does make us feel better if we think we can have a relationship with un unfathomable concept!
A
agangbern
Guest
The Word was made flesh. God became man. By that act of love, God made Himself fathomable to man.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
God is constrained by REALITY. Logic is a reflection of REALITY
True = 1 False = 0
Reality = 1 Non-real = 0
God = 1 Not God = 0
God can only do what is real and therefore all things that are possible (real) are possible for God.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
I’m thinking that we need to chop things up. If you find that one of these “chops” has answered a question, then we can just let it be. It may be that it’s not worth pursuing, and you can let it be.
"PEPCIS:
I thought it was common knowledge among Christians that our will is not free to make certain choices. I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but this certainly would go a long way in you understanding where I am coming from.
I choose to add:
"PEPCIS:
I didn’t really think so.
I thought it was common knowledge among Christians that our will is not free to make certain choices. I may be making unwarranted assumptions here, but this certainly would go a long way in you understanding where I am coming from.Shike said:
I choose to add:
- Restricted in the sense that man is depraved from before birth, and that because of that depravity, we stand condemned of God.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"PEPCIS:
Perhaps you meant to say “It does when the only outcomes you are interested are those which are true/real propositions.”
In that case, I would agree. The rules of logic work on false propositions just as they do on real propositions, but it behooves us to not consider false ones because they are a waste of our time and energy.
Hmmmm. I thought that’s what I said. In any case, you were correct to correct me when I juxtaposed R and S. It should have been A and R.
But yes, we are in agreement that “B” is a good way to reflect “all choices which we have the ability to accept or reject.” “All choices” being “propositions” introduced into the formula.
Shike:
If only one is true, then the other MUST be true. “To do” or “not to do” (when speaking of the same “doing”) are fundamentally 2 sides of the same coin and cannot be separated.
Perhaps you meant to say “It does when the only outcomes you are interested are those which are true/real propositions.”
In that case, I would agree. The rules of logic work on false propositions just as they do on real propositions, but it behooves us to not consider false ones because they are a waste of our time and energy.
PEPCIS said:Shike:
Hmmmm. I thought that’s what I said. In any case, you were correct to correct me when I juxtaposed R and S. It should have been A and R.
But yes, we are in agreement that “B” is a good way to reflect “all choices which we have the ability to accept or reject.” “All choices” being “propositions” introduced into the formula.
Actually, I did NOT state that, either in formula or words. I’m making an assumption that all propositions are REAL propositions. As I stated above, “The rules of logic work on false propositions just as they do on real propositions, but it behooves us to not consider false ones because they are a waste of our time and energy.”
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"Shike:
To begin with, (excuse me for preaching to the choir) “logic” is nothing more than a set of rules with which we can examine propositions by. When we use logic, it can help us to reject those proposals which do not conform to logic.
For example, a computer is a logic machine which operates by rules of logic pre-programmed into it. However, the expression “GIGO” (garbage in garbage out) was created to express the possibility of (name removed by moderator)uting false propositions into it. The computer has no ability to distinguish between false propositions and real ones.
Nevertheless, if the proposition is (name removed by moderator)uted into the computer conforming to the pre-programmed rules of logic and syntax, the computer will still process it.
For the same token, false propositions can be suggested and examined according to the rules of logic. In such cases, it means that we must have other means of determining if the propositions are real. In those cases, we would have to have a two-step processs where the first process would determine if the proposition is true. Then the second step could run through to examine some aspect of the proposal.
Shike:
However, this is the second step in the two-step process which I just outlined. You missed the first step, which would help us to determine if the proposition is even real.
Your claim is that my claim that “God can choose to not exist” is a false claim. You have suspended logic to come to such a proposition, so you cannot proceed to the second step of the two-step process until you have properly completed the first step of the process.
Shike:
Sorry, I suspected it may be hard to grasp the way that I wrote that.The addition of P changes everything. In my argument, if the only knowledge we have is P is false (which is what I claim about “God can choose not to exist”), then free will is not true no matter what.
Shike:
To begin with, (excuse me for preaching to the choir) “logic” is nothing more than a set of rules with which we can examine propositions by. When we use logic, it can help us to reject those proposals which do not conform to logic.
For example, a computer is a logic machine which operates by rules of logic pre-programmed into it. However, the expression “GIGO” (garbage in garbage out) was created to express the possibility of (name removed by moderator)uting false propositions into it. The computer has no ability to distinguish between false propositions and real ones.
Nevertheless, if the proposition is (name removed by moderator)uted into the computer conforming to the pre-programmed rules of logic and syntax, the computer will still process it.
For the same token, false propositions can be suggested and examined according to the rules of logic. In such cases, it means that we must have other means of determining if the propositions are real. In those cases, we would have to have a two-step processs where the first process would determine if the proposition is true. Then the second step could run through to examine some aspect of the proposal.
Originally, you stated the following:
So, with my explanation above concerning false propositions being examined by the rules of logic, all I am saying is that your explanation conforms to the rules of logic. That is why I said “Your logic is solid.”
However, this is the second step in the two-step process which I just outlined. You missed the first step, which would help us to determine if the proposition is even real.
Your claim is that my claim that “God can choose to not exist” is a false claim. You have suspended logic to come to such a proposition, so you cannot proceed to the second step of the two-step process until you have properly completed the first step of the process.
As I said, that’s a suspension of logic. Logic dictates that if you hold proposition A, and proposition B is the flip side of proposition A, that both propositions are valid and real. You suspend logic to claim that ONLY proposition A is real - that God can only choose to exist.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"PEPCIS:
Humans must adopt this logic to include miracles. That is probably better known as “faith.” But it certainly does not oppose “the logic which transcends the universe.”
I guess I would mean that when we discuss miracles in the Bible, that they conform to Biblical logic. We could call it “Christian logic”, or “The Logic of God.”
Humans must adopt this logic to include miracles. That is probably better known as “faith.” But it certainly does not oppose “the logic which transcends the universe.”
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"vera dicere:
[SIGN]Isaiah 64:6 We are unfit to worship you; each of our good deeds is merely a filthy rag. We dry up like leaves; our sins are storm winds sweeping us away.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Romans 3:23 All of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Eccl. 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Rom. 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]2 Timothy 3:1-5 You can be certain that in the last days there will be some very hard times. People will love only themselves and money. They will be proud, stuck-up, rude, and disobedient to their parents. They will also be ungrateful, godless, heartless, and hateful. Their words will be cruel, and they will have no self-control or pity. These people will hate everything that is good. They will be sneaky, reckless, and puffed up with pride. Instead of loving God, they will love pleasure. Even though they will make a show of being religious, their religion won’t be real. Don’t have anything to do with such people.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Isaiah 64:6 We are unfit to worship you; each of our good deeds is merely a filthy rag. We dry up like leaves; our sins are storm winds sweeping us away.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Romans 3:23 All of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Eccl. 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.[/SIGN]
[SIGN]Rom. 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.[/SIGN]
S
Shike
Guest
Let’s step back a moment. Whoaaaa nelly.
Let’s forget about the equations, there are too many insufficiencies and it obscures rather than clarifies.
We’re somewhere. And apparently, all I have to do now is show you that “God can choose to exist or not exist” is nonsense, ie. not a real proposition and therefore not true or false (Which I think I did the first couple posts I made in this forum, but we can have a do-over). But please stop saying that I have suspended my reasoning of logic; as I have good responses as to why your claim isn’t a real proposition. I do… yes. Yes, I do.
Oh and a side note… I think you are confusing terms in a reccent post when you contrast with the words “false” and “real” propositions. A real proposition can be true or(exclusive or) false. An unreal proposition cannot be true or(inclusive or) false.
There are 3 (maybe 2 really) possibilities to address “God can choose to not exist” (and “God can choose to exist” is addressed by the final outcome of our endeavor, so don’t worry).
They are:
God isn’t real, God is imperfect (which technically is contained with God isn’t real because the original concept of God is changed; this is the path greylorn has chosen), or the proposition is not actually a proposition ie. nonsense.
These are the only 3 options. Your option of “but He chooses to not not exist, but could choose if He wanted to” is not an option. Not in these types of cases. Fundamentally ruled out. And when I say fundamentally ruled out, it doesn’t mean that the opposite of your claim is true, that God doesn’t choose to not not exist. What it means is that categorically your claim is ruled out. That choosing yes or choosing no doesn’t even apply. No choosing applies categorically. “No choosing” in this case isn’t a limit or a denial of free-will since the concept of free-will cannot even be invoked.
#184 & #242 & #409 These are my original posts and the meat of why your claim is not an option. Read them, ponder them, and then comment specifically on why you disagree, if indeed you still do.
ciao.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanks to all you intellectuals, this midwest poster is learning something new every day. Just looked up peyote - - - - :bigyikes:He is after a hit of peyote whilst camping under the stars in the Arizona desert. I guarantee that.
Apparently, it isn’t related to the Canis latrans
Blessings,
granny
- Status