NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many Christian doctrines (especially Catholic doctrines, as that is how I was raised) which seem downright contradictory to me:
-Trinitarianism: Simply put 1 does not equal 3. How can one being be three persons, aren't those almost synonyms.
-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.
-Transubstantiation: How can something be bread in literally every observable way and yet, not be bread?
-How can god be both transcendent and omnipresent. As I understand it transcendent means "existing in no place and time" and omnipresent means "existing in every place and time."

And I've been talking to some Mormons, and they say that the Godhead is three distinct beings united in purpose. Then when I said, "So Mormonism isn't monotheistic?" They said, "How is Mormonism not monotheistic?"

I think that either some Christians (not all of them of course) either actually participate in doublethink or they really don't understand what they are saying.

Please pardon my English, as I was taught in the American school system.

THATS your problem with christianity? maybe you should pay more attention to the rest of it too.

those are mysteries. think of them as the catholic equivalent of zen koans. the simultaneous 100% god/100% man of jesus is the sound of one hand clapping. meditate on it and after a while it will make sense and you will reach enlightenment.

Doublethink is good for the soul
supposing it gets you into heaven

There are many Christian doctrines (especially Catholic doctrines, as that is how I was raised) which seem downright contradictory to me:
-Trinitarianism: Simply put 1 does not equal 3. How can one being be three persons, aren't those almost synonyms.
-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.
-Transubstantiation: How can something be bread in literally every observable way and yet, not be bread?
-How can god be both transcendent and omnipresent. As I understand it transcendent means "existing in no place and time" and omnipresent means "existing in every place and time."

And I've been talking to some Mormons, and they say that the Godhead is three distinct beings united in purpose. Then when I said, "So Mormonism isn't monotheistic?" They said, "How is Mormonism not monotheistic?"

I think that either some Christians (not all of them of course) either actually participate in doublethink or they really don't understand what they are saying.

Please pardon my English, as I was taught in the American school system.

They are not three god, but three persons of the one God. It seems unusual because we don't have three humans as one person. God is not a human being, the persons of the trinity are one in purpose and they could never disagree with each other but each is a different aspect of God. How can the earthly hope to easily understand the divine?

How can something seem to be bread but be the body of God, soul and divinity? It's a mystery. We know it's true by faith. And think, since when has anyone been able to observe the existance of a soul? It is an unobservable phenomenon by nature, as is the eucharist.

THATS your problem with christianity? maybe you should pay more attention to the rest of it too.

those are mysteries. think of them as the catholic equivalent of zen koans. the simultaneous 100% god/100% man of jesus is the sound of one hand clapping. meditate on it and after a while it will make sense and you will reach enlightenment.As if protestants had any different view on trinity or the nature of Yeshua. :rolleyes:

Actually, it's not doublethink; frankly, it comes across as more of a very deep idea rather than any kind of denial. It might be considered akin to a Zen koan; by meditating on the concept, you eventually are able to see its meaning and so acquire a closer relationship with and understanding of God's infinite nature. It's a rather deep idea when you consider it from that paradoxical angle, especially considering that many of Jesus' teachings are also indirect or unclear, forcing us to draw our own conclusions. Christianity has a lot of things in it that make you think if you take the time to look in to them. (Sadly, many Christians don't and get only a superficial view of the deeper meaning behind these teachings).

Kirkegaard, for example, considered the union of God and man in the form of Jesus to be one of the greatest paradoxes of all time, capping the fundamental nature of the universe as paradoxical. Thinking about these mysteries reveals to us our own personal relationship with God, which then transcends all of the human laws and conventions.

-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.

this isn't as much as a doublethink as you might percieve... it is commonly taught that God is an omnipotent force in Catholic churches, while it is commonly taught in Protestant churches that God is a more fatherly figure - which, of course, follows that there is not an inherent question in Christianity to the divinity of God, only to the faith and fear of His followers in certain branches of Christianity.

What paradoxes? Egyptians had manifold manifestations of gods and real-god/real-human folks all the time. Remember how the very early Copts tried to construct a history so Yeshua would be the rightful successor to Egypt's throne? His pharaonic nature would then have made him god and human long before the council of Nicaea decided thus for the rest of Christianity.

I'm not going to fully repeat what those who are probably far better educated in the concept have already said, but though such things can be easily thought of as double-thought, they do call them mysteries for a reason.

And though thinking on such matters will give you a headache (as it has me many times before), it is ultimately what makes religion facinating.

-Transubstantiation: How can something be bread in literally every observable way and yet, not be bread?

Protestants consider it symbolic, and Catholics consider the transformation to be spiritual rather than literal. Although there have been miracles where the bread did in fact turn in to flesh and blood; make of it what you will, of course, but I wasn't there so I can't claim much about it.

-How can god be both transcendent and omnipresent. As I understand it transcendent means "existing in no place and time" and omnipresent means "existing in every place and time."


In this case, God does exist in every place in time in the sense that he isn't part part of the physical universe. The problem is, humans can't really imagine what existing outside of space and time is like; I mean, if God exists outside of those two things, then everything in the universe would appear to happen simultaneously to him and every single possible outcome of events would appear simultaneously as well.

Transcendence doesn't mean existing in no place and time, it means existing in a way that surpasses the physical universe and is independent of it. God is not part of the physical universe, but according to this argument he can intervene in it since he did create it.

There are many Christian doctrines (especially Catholic doctrines, as that is how I was raised) which seem downright contradictory to me:
-Trinitarianism: Simply put 1 does not equal 3. How can one being be three persons, aren't those almost synonyms.
-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.
-Transubstantiation: How can something be bread in literally every observable way and yet, not be bread?
-How can god be both transcendent and omnipresent. As I understand it transcendent means "existing in no place and time" and omnipresent means "existing in every place and time."

And I've been talking to some Mormons, and they say that the Godhead is three distinct beings united in purpose. Then when I said, "So Mormonism isn't monotheistic?" They said, "How is Mormonism not monotheistic?"

I think that either some Christians (not all of them of course) either actually participate in doublethink or they really don't understand what they are saying.

Please pardon my English, as I was taught in the American school system.

I have a counter-question for you. Why do you think the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?

As if protestants had any different view on trinity or the nature of Yeshua. :rolleyes:

some do some dont. they are free to set up their own denomination believing whatever seems best to them to believe.

so some dont believe in the trinity. some (most?) dont believe in transubstantiation. some (most?) dont subscribe to that 100% god/100% human thing.

i referenced catholicism because he did.

What paradoxes? Egyptians had manifold manifestations of gods and real-god/real-human folks all the time. Remember how the very early Copts tried to construct a history so Yeshua would be the rightful successor to Egypt's throne? His pharaonic nature would then have made him god and human long before the council of Nicaea decided thus for the rest of Christianity.

Just because they had them doesn't mean it's not a paradox. The Gods of Egyptian mythology were neither omnipotent, omniscient, truly transcendent nor omnibenevolent like the God of Christianity is. The paradox stems from that conception of the union between God and man, not the Egyptian conception.

Also, who's to say that Nicea wasn't really correct in their interpretation of God, and groups like the Copts were the ones corrupting Christianity away from the teachings of the first apostles? After all, none of us were there when Jesus taught, so any evidence we have comes either from the Bible, from the histories of the Church, or from these rival groups themselves...and we have no idea who is correct other than what we take on faith.

I would think that any attempt to define such a concept as god within the laws of physics would fail consistently. Why must any god make sense to us? If they truly possess traits and abilities that we do not, then why would we assume that they are bound by the same laws as we are? Whose to say they even manifest on our plane of existance.

some do some dont. they are free to set up their own denomination believing whatever seems best to them to believe.

so some dont believe in the trinity. some (most?) dont believe in transubstantiation. some (most?) dont subscribe to that 100% god/100% human thing.

i referenced catholicism because he did.Yeah, protestant sects in the US are different from those elsewhere on the planet. They arbitrarily pick out of orthodox tradition and the Bible what fits their own ideology.

I have a counter-question for you. Why do you think the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?

Even so, the Law of Contradiction only really applies to our perception of reality and our experiences; to an infinite God, it would most definitely be possible to be both omniscient and have free will, or to be infinitely good and allow evil to occur.

A fundamental rethinking of this debate is necessary, because both sides continue to fall in to the trap of trying to rationalize God through the terms of limited human comprehension and a finite universe.

Just because they had them doesn't mean it's not a paradox. The Gods of Egyptian mythology were neither omnipotent, omniscient, truly transcendent nor omnibenevolent like the God of Christianity is. The paradox stems from that conception of the union between God and man, not the Egyptian conception.The Egyptian gods were as omnipotent, omniscient, truly transcendent (if they wished) as the Jewish god the Christians worship.

Also, who's to say that Nicea wasn't really correct in their interpretation of God, and groups like the Copts were the ones corrupting Christianity away from the teachings of the first apostles? After all, none of us were there when Jesus taught, so any evidence we have comes either from the Bible, from the histories of the Church, or from these rival groups themselves...and we have no idea who is correct other than what we take on faith.?? So Christianity is pointless? Agreed.

I have a counter-question for you. Why do you think the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Interesting question. Lets look at it critically.

Technically logic doesn't require non-contradiction. It is perfectly fine to accept P and not P as axioms. However, P and not P implies Q. That's right any Q. So if you accept contradictory things, you accept everything...

...in classical logic. But, there are what are called paraconsistent logics. In these logics, p and not p does not imply q. However to do this, one needs to remove an inference rule of classical logic. Disjunction introduction (a implies a or b) or disjunctive syllogism (a or b and not a implies b) are common.

This is all fine and dandy, but if the world is governed by a paraconsistent logic, then I cannot say you are wrong! If you assert P, and I assert not p. I haven't contradicted you, you can still be right. But I could say not p and not (p and not p), but this statement itself could be both true and false. So there is an infinite regress, and it is really impossible to positively assert anything.

As for the comparison to Zen Koans. My understanding is that the point of Zen Koans are that they are not literal. But Christian doctrines are suppose to be absolutely literal.

-Trinitarianism: Simply put 1 does not equal 3. How can one being be three persons, aren't those almost synonyms.
-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.
-Transubstantiation: How can something be bread in literally every observable way and yet, not be bread?
-How can god be both transcendent and omnipresent. As I understand it transcendent means "existing in no place and time" and omnipresent means "existing in every place and time."
He's God. You've never heard the term "omnipotent"?

Also, you're taking the Bible too literally. The story is full of symbolism and was, I suspect, translated poorly.

There are many Christian doctrines (especially Catholic doctrines, as that is how I was raised) which seem downright contradictory to me:

According to most Christians, only the truly enlightened can gain a true appreciation of those tenets. I, on the other hand, think they're bullshit, just like the Buddhist equivalents.

He's God. You've never heard the term "omnipotent"?

Also, you're taking the Bible too literally. The story is full of symbolism and was, I suspect, translated poorly.The original Greek isn't any better. And I think it's rather not the wording that is flawed...

They all fall under "Have faith, explain it to yourself."

Otherwise, you will never be satisfied by another person's explanation.

He's God. You've never heard the term "omnipotent"?

Also, you're taking the Bible too literally. The story is full of symbolism and was, I suspect, translated poorly.

I have.
I'm not taking the bible literally, Christians are.
Here's a question:
Can God do something that he is unaware of?

I have.
I'm not taking the bible literally, Christians are.
Here's a question:
Can God do something that he is unaware of??? Do you do things you're unaware of?

As for the comparison to Zen Koans. My understanding is that the point of Zen Koans are that they are not literal. But Christian doctrines are suppose to be absolutely literal.

it just adds to the mystery

?? Do you do things you're unaware of?
Yes and God can do anything.

And Zen is more explicity anti-logic, whereas the pope said that Catholicism was a rational religion.

Yes and God can do anything.How come you know?

Yeah, protestant sects in the US are different from those elsewhere on the planet. They arbitrarily pick out of orthodox tradition and the Bible what fits their own ideology.

its all that freedom, it goes to our heads.

How come you know?

He's omnipotent.

its all that freedom, it goes to our heads.I can believe that...

He's omnipotent.What indications do you have for that?

What indications do you have for that?

My priest told me so.

I must clarify, I'm not ruling out the possiblity of something we should call god.
I'm just saying that the god concept I was taught doesn't make any sense.

Even so, the Law of Contradiction only really applies to our perception of reality and our experiences; to an infinite God, it would most definitely be possible to be both omniscient and have free will, or to be infinitely good and allow evil to occur.

A fundamental rethinking of this debate is necessary, because both sides continue to fall in to the trap of trying to rationalize God through the terms of limited human comprehension and a finite universe.

Precisely. I do find it interesting that folks would try to apply basic logico-mathematic principles to love. Same sort of nonsense, I think.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Interesting question. Lets look at it critically.

<snipped for brevity>

I already have looked at it critically. Perhaps you could just answer the original question instead of dodging it? Your critique of Christian theology does seem to rest on that Law.

I have.
I'm not taking the bible literally, Christians are.
Most of us aren't.
Here's a question:
Can God do something that he is unaware of?
He's both omniscient and omnipotent. He can perform any act, but he will know about it. He has the potency to know the unknowable.
The original Greek isn't any better. And I think it's rather not the wording that is flawed...
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/warninglabel5.jpg

My priest told me so.

I must clarify, I'm not ruling out the possiblity of something we should call god.
I'm just saying that the god concept I was taught doesn't make any sense.That god concept is which?

Precisely. I do find it interesting that folks would try to apply basic logico-mathematic principles to love. Same sort of nonsense, I think.Why? Love is just a chemical thing in one's brain.

Most of us aren't.Since most haven't even read it.

I have a counter-question for you. Why do you think the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?

u can believe in contradictions but it raises alot of problems

like surely if contradictions can be true than a being can exist and be greater than god? so when someone says i believe in god, i can just say yea well i believe in super-god and he is so much better than ur god

actually now that i think about it, it would be fun to believe in contradictions!

"meaning is so meaningless"
"ultimate salvation is boring (and pointless)"
"i am better than god":D hehe just a few of the random statements you can throw at christians when they get into the whole faith in a paradox thing

Reposting from a thread a few months ago, about vague deities:

Mystery is a key to having power over others.

If Truth is simple and easily understood, then it is egalitarian. Everyone will have access to it; everyone will conceive themselves as capable of thinking for themselves. They will question their leaders, because they will see themselves as worthy beings. They will understand the doctrines, and thus their leaders cannot manipulate the doctrines to their advantage.

If Truth is complicated and mysterious, however, a specialist class can be created; people who can monopolize and control access to it. They will claim that extensive study and great talent is required for proper understanding, and, of course, such study and talent rests only with them - so the people must obey, lest they transgress. Actions that may seem absurd and arbitrary can be justified by appeal to the doctrines; people do not understand them, so they can hardly object. The Truth can be manipulated at will by the powerful to fleece the public and get it to accept its marginalization and low status.

(Of course, this is only relevant to organized religion. There is no hint of this at all in other areas of knowledge. Who could possibly imagine otherwise?)

Can God do something that he is unaware of?

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif

Yeah, protestant sects in the US are different from those elsewhere on the planet. They arbitrarily pick out of orthodox tradition and the Bible what fits their own ideology.

Very true.

And their idealogies contradict each other.

Once Christianity comes up with its own holidays and decides which versio of the Bible to quote, I might conside re-joining.

I already have looked at it critically. Perhaps you could just answer the original question instead of dodging it? Your critique of Christian theology does seem to rest on that Law.
Crud, hes on to me.
Why do you think the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?
Well, I agree with Wikipedia, it is a fundamental principle of thought:
According to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, this is a fundamental principle of thought, which can only be proved by showing the opponents of the principle to be themselves committed to it.
*snip*
The law of non-contradiction is self proving in that anyone who denies it, proves it.
And with this guy:
Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

Since most haven't even read it.

Well, since most of it is bullshit, and it's a boring read anyway, I can see why they haven't.

My priest told me so.

I must clarify, I'm not ruling out the possiblity of something we should call god.
I'm just saying that the god concept I was taught doesn't make any sense.

you dont have to believe anything that doesnt make sense to you. you are free to be agnostic, atheist, or to make a version of christianity* that does make sense to you. you could even enjoy the rituals and traditions of the catholic church without subscribing to catholic dogma. millions of people do just that.

if its important to you that you believe exactly what you have been taught AND that that make sense, you better start praying and meditating on these things. they dont make sense in the secular world and never will.

*ya ya christianity or any other religious tradition that strikes your fancy.

-Trinitarianism: Simply put 1 does not equal 3. How can one being be three persons, aren't those almost synonyms.

And a triangle has three sides but it is only one triangle. Take away two of the sides and you don’t have a triangle anymore. It cannot have more or less sides, it has what it has to be a triangle. The same with God and his three personas.

-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.

Philippians 2 (NRSV)
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross..

-Transubstantiation: How can something be bread in literally every observable way and yet, not be bread?

1 Corinthians 11
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves.


-How can god be both transcendent and omnipresent. As I understand it transcendent means "existing in no place and time" and omnipresent means "existing in every place and time."

God’s center is everywhere, His boundary is nowhere. He is in all things but all things do not describe him because he is more than all things.


I think that either some Christians (not all of them of course) either actually participate in doublethink or they really don't understand what they are saying.

They know what they are saying. They understand what they are saying. They also know why you have trouble making sense of it in secular terms.

1 Corinthians 1 (NRSV)
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
and

1 Corinthians 3 (NRSV)
Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’,
and again,
‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise,
that they are futile.’

Crud, hes on to me.

Well, I agree with Wikipedia, it is a fundamental principle of thought:

And with this guy:

but ur using the the law of non-contradiction to prove the law of non-contradiction, is that not a contradiction?

i mean belief that a paradox cannot be true is the belief that a paradox being true is a paradox rite?

are their any other ways of lookin at it? plz tell me if there are

Well, since most of it is bullshit, and it's a boring read anyway, I can see why they haven't.Well, if you read as a non-believer it becomes pretty interesting. It in fact makes you wanna go out and kill every single dumbass Jew and Christian you meet, just for the unbelievable presumptuousness it conveys.

snip
Damn. That was ridiculously awesome.

Do you have an answer to this one?:
Here's a question:
Can God do something that he is unaware of?

Why? Love is just a chemical thing in one's brain.

Ever been in love? Lust s all chemical, love is so much more than that.

like surely if contradictions can be true than a being can exist and be greater than god? so when someone says i believe in god, i can just say yea well i believe in super-god and he is so much better than ur god

It falls apart when I simply say God is absolutely infinite. Nothing can be greater than that because infinity is always greater than any given statement of greatness.

It falls apart when I simply say God is absolutely infinite. Nothing can be greater than that because infinity is always greater than any given statement of greatness.

You are adhering to the Law of Non-Contradiction, whose universal applicability you just denied.

There are many Christian doctrines (especially Catholic doctrines, as that is how I was raised) which seem downright contradictory to me:
-Trinitarianism: Simply put 1 does not equal 3. How can one being be three persons, aren't those almost synonyms.
-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.
-Transubstantiation: How can something be bread in literally every observable way and yet, not be bread?
-How can god be both transcendent and omnipresent. As I understand it transcendent means "existing in no place and time" and omnipresent means "existing in every place and time."

And I've been talking to some Mormons, and they say that the Godhead is three distinct beings united in purpose. Then when I said, "So Mormonism isn't monotheistic?" They said, "How is Mormonism not monotheistic?"

I think that either some Christians (not all of them of course) either actually participate in doublethink or they really don't understand what they are saying.

Please pardon my English, as I was taught in the American school system.

Trinity - three Persons = one God. Not three Persons = one Person or three Gods = one God. The last two make no sense: they are self-contradictions. The first is beyond our comprehension (at least in this life) but is not necessarily a contradiction.

Divinity of Christ - Again, it is not saying that Man and God are the same (a contradiction). It is saying that the two natures were joined (not mixed). So that Jesus was fully God and fully Man. We don't know how, but we know it must be - that Scripture teaches it. We also (to a degree) know why: God is the only person perfect enough to approach God and Man must represent Man. So Jesus must be both to be our Sacrifice for sins and our Mediator.

Transubstantiation - I have no support for this, because I think it is an error on the part of the Roman Catholic Church which leads to great sins, even idolatry. I am a supporter of consbustantiation (Christ is spiritually present), but I can live with the Zwinglian explanation also (it is merely a memorial): I think it is in error, but not sin.

Transcendent nature - God exists outside of space and time (He made them, so He must be outside them) and can therefore interject at all places and times all the time. It's like sticking you're finger through a mircoscopic 2-D world. The slice of your finger is everywhere in that world, but you are not in it. Same with God, but He is spirit. Thankfully, or we should all be crushed when His finger passed through us.

It falls apart when I simply say God is absolutely infinite. Nothing can be greater than that because infinity is always greater than any given statement of greatness.

but your sayin it's a contradiction to say it, yet we've assumed that the law of non contradictions is wrong, so i can say something can be greater than god and beyond infinite because it is a contradiction?

You are adhering to the Law of Non-Contradiction, whose universal applicability you just denied.

Let's reword it: I could simply say God is both absolutely infinite and greater than absolutely infinite.

Why? Love is just a chemical thing in one's brain.

Are you a physicalist, UB?

Let's reword it: I could simply say God is both absolutely infinite and greater than absolutely infinite.

Yeah, and I could say that Super-God is greater than greater than absolutely infinite.

In fact, I could say that indeed, you are right; God is greater than Super-God. Not only that, however, but Super-God is also greater than God.

Everything collapses when you abandon the Law of Non-Contradiction, unless you only do it in the most marginal of cases.

Are you a physicalist, UB?A realist.

but your sayin it's a contradiction to say it, yet we've assumed that the law of non contradictions is wrong, so i can say something can be greater than god and beyond infinite because it is a contradiction?

You can, that's correct. But then again, we fall in to the trap of defining God according to human conceptions; would that not cause it to fall under the Law?

In fact, saying God both is and isn't perceived according to the Law of Non-contradiction is in itself a valid argument that violates the law.

Everything collapses when you abandon the Law of Non-Contradiction, unless you only do it in the most marginal of cases.

Everything collapses in to infinite regress if you abandon it. Of course, given that God is seen as infinite, that might fit if we assume God is above the Law of Non-Contradiction.

A realist.

What is reality? And, for that matter, how can a physicalist explain the existence of qualia or mental states?

Damn. That was ridiculously awesome.

Do you have an answer to this one?:
*Can God do something he is unaware of?*


Yes, Matthew 24:36
‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

A realist.

That is, you defend the existence of objective, external reality? ;)

Yeah, and I could say that Super-God is greater than greater than absolutely infinite.

In fact, I could say that indeed, you are right; God is greater than Super-God. Not only that, however, but Super-God is also greater than God.

Everything collapses when you abandon the Law of Non-Contradiction, unless you only do it in the most marginal of cases.

exactly, so it's a paradox to say super-god is better than god PERIOD and sayin ur not allowed to carry on the chain

but we just got rid of the law of non contradictions so you can...

yea but i can go against your new law etc....

makes me think, maybe if you carried on one of these infinite chains you would eventually reach some amazing truth, but it just takes millions of years or even eternity:eek: i think someone should try it:D

snip
You didn't validate the bible.
The number of sides and the number of triangles are different properties. PLEASE explain how the number of beings and the number of persons are different properties.
but ur using the the law of non-contradiction to prove the law of non-contradiction, is that not a contradiction?

i mean belief that a paradox cannot be true is the belief that a paradox being true is a paradox rite?

are their any other ways of lookin at it? plz tell me if there are
Uhh, no. If the LNC is true, then it is true. And if it is false, then it is true. So therefore it is tautology.

Crud, hes on to me.

Well, I agree with Wikipedia, it is a fundamental principle of thought:

And with this guy:

That's nice. And fundamental principles of human thought are always true, which is why you conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?

Everything collapses in to infinite regress if you abandon it. Of course, given that God is seen as infinite, that might fit if we assume God is above the Law of Non-Contradiction.

but if he is, surely he can create a perfect world without violating free will:D

i just HAD to say that....

That's nice. And fundamental principles of human thought are always true, which is why you conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?
Ah ah ahhhh. I didn't say fundamental property of human thought, I said fundamental property of thought. Its true because the sky is blue. And I can prove that.

Ever been in love? Lust s all chemical, love is so much more than that.

Well, here's a big problem: If I tell you what chemical reactions produce the sensation of love, do you know what it's like to be in love?

It's like describing pain or joy in physical terms; it doesn't work, because that tells you nothing about what it actually feels like.

but if he is, surely he can create a perfect world without violating free will:D

i just HAD to say that....

Maybe the world is perfect to God; even perfection in itself is defined in human terms, so who is to say that God's concept of perfection is even remotely similar to our conception of it?

Ever been in love? Lust s all chemical, love is so much more than that.That's a misconception of those who don't have the brains to know their own brains....

You didn't validate the bible.

Uhh, no. If the LNC is true, then it is true. And if it is false, then it is true. So therefore it is tautology.

care to explain this? seems like you've made a random statement! i could just say no the LNC is wrong, then you say that means its true, and i say no its not and then you say thats a contradiction to deny that LNC is true and say exactly cuz i believe in contradictions

Maybe the world is perfect to God; even perfection in itself is defined in human terms, so who is to say that God's concept of perfection is even remotely similar to our conception of it?

exactly so god in terms of human views is evil

Ah ah ahhhh. I didn't say fundamental property of human thought, I said fundamental property of thought. Its true because the sky is blue. And I can prove that.

You can prove that the sky is blue in terms of the atmosphere diffracting light towards the higher end of the light spectrum according to the laws of physics, but you can't describe or prove the property of "blueness" itself.

Ah ah ahhhh. I didn't say fundamental property of human thought, I said fundamental property of thought. Its true because the sky is blue. And I can prove that.

Oh, my apologies. Then how have you determined that it is a fundamental property of the thought of all beings?

The sky is blue. Classic example, that. Too bad the the sky is not inherently or objectively blue. It just looks that way to us because of the nature of our perceptual mechanisms.

That's a misconception of those who don't have the brains to know their own brains....

No, describe to me what it is like to be in love in physical terms.

Maybe the world is perfect to God; even perfection in itself is defined in human terms, so who is to say that God's concept of perfection is even remotely similar to our conception of it?

If God's conception of perfection is different from ours, why should we care if He considers Himself perfect?

And fundamental principles of human thought are always true, which is why you conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true?

True or not, fundamental properties of thought tend to be fairly effective at ensuring that the world as we perceive it corresponds to them - making them true as far as our experience goes, which is the only thing we can claim any real kind of "knowledge" about anyway.

exactly, so it's a paradox to say super-god is better than god PERIOD and sayin ur not allowed to carry on the chain

but we just got rid of the law of non contradictions so you can...

yea but i can go against your new law etc....

makes me think, maybe if you carried on one of these infinite chains you would eventually reach some amazing truth, but it just takes millions of years or even eternity:eek: i think someone should try it:D

I remember a funny conversation I had with a philosophy instructor of mine once. For some reason (I don't remember why) we started talking about logic, and he gave us the usual example:

1. Socrates is a man.
2. All men are mortal.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

He seemed to expect the class to meekly accept that yes, the conclusion followed from the premises, but I denied this, based on two arguments:

1. There is no premise explicitly recognizing the legitimacy of the logical method, but the argument assumes it; lacking a necessary premise, it is thus invalid.
2. Even if you assume that (1) is resolved by the fact that the premise is implicit in the form, and need not be stated, it still doesn't necessarily follow. For I can easily add a fourth premise - "The Law of Non-Contradiction is false" - and deny the conclusion anyway.

The only thing that is left when you are willing to deny logic is complete incoherence, and incoherence that leads you absolutely nowhere.

If God's conception of perfection is different from ours, why should we care if He considers Himself perfect?

Maybe we shouldn't; perhaps the best option is to find a way to understand our relationship with God and go from there, rather than trying to fit God in to something we can understand.

Yes, Matthew 24:36
‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

But if the Father is aware of the hour that will be the end of the world, then he knows it. This isn't an example of God doing something he is unaware of, its an example of God doing something that no one else is aware of.

But if the Father is aware of the hour that will be the end of the world, then he knows it. This isn't an example of God doing something he is unaware of, its an example of God doing something that no one else is aware of.

God is omnipotent: He can do anything He wants.

God does not want to do anything outside His nature (which would be not knowing something: He's omniscient).

God is omnipotent: He can do anything He wants.

That is not the definition of "omnipotent."

That is not the definition of "omnipotent."

Then, what is it? To have the ability to do anything? Well, God is not omnipotent, then, because Scripture makes it clear that He cannot do many things: forgive unrepented sin, sin, tempt, etc.

The definition I used is the traditional definition of Chrisitianity (or at least the one always taught me, and all Christian writers I have read agree).

But if the Father is aware of the hour that will be the end of the world, then he knows it. This isn't an example of God doing something he is unaware of, its an example of God doing something that no one else is aware of.

psssst read the verse again....


god as the father is aware, god as the son is not aware. so god as the trinity is both aware AND unaware of the hour.

cool!

The definition I used is the traditional definition of Chrisitianity (or at least the one always taught me, and all Christian writers I have read agree).

Let me illustrate the point with a simple thought experiment.

A person is caught in a traffic accident, and permanently paralyzed. To stop her from suffering, her brain is modified so that she does not desire anything that she cannot do in her state. Everything she wants to do, she can do; but, of course, what she wants to do is an extremely narrow and limited thing. She cannot even move, let alone affect much of the rest of the world.

Is she omnipotent?

Let me illustrate the point with a simple thought experiment.

A person is caught in a traffic accident, and permanently paralyzed. To stop her from suffering, her brain is modified so that she does not desire anything that she cannot do in her state. Everything she wants to do, she can do; but, of course, what she wants to do is an extremely narrow and limited thing. She cannot even move, let alone affect much of the rest of the world.

Is she omnipotent?

Of course not. So, I do not have so great a grip on the term as I thought. I still maintain that God is omnipotent, and that He cannot do some things. I just have to find a better explanation.

psssst read the verse again....


god as the father is aware, god as the son is not aware. so god as the trinity is both aware AND unaware of the hour.

cool!

God is SCHITZO! I meant fully unaware of.

God is SCHITZO! I meant fully unaware of.

100% aware 100% unaware.

its the christian god. gotta go with what youre given.

100% aware 100% unaware.

its the christian god. gotta go with what youre given.

GHAAAAA. Doublethink again.

Here, prove that god exists and that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

GHAAAAA. Doublethink again.

Here, prove that god exists and that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

sorry, thats not my job.

as i said before, you are free to believe whatever makes sense to you. everyone else does.

GHAAAAA. Doublethink again.

Here, prove that god exists and that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

Do you understand that you must simply accept these with faith or explain them to yourself?

YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND UNLESS YOU FIND THE ANSWER YOURSELF.

Sorry.

GHAAAAA. Doublethink again.

Here, prove that god exists and that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

Well, first things first: Prove that this idea is doublethink. In order for it to be, the two ideas not only have to be contradictory but also untrue.

Once we've established your belief, we can move on to the other impossibility of proving the existence or nonexistence of God. Unfortunately, it requires a leap of faith either way.

Well, first things first: Prove that this idea is doublethink. In order for it to be, the two ideas not only have to be contradictory but also untrue.

Once we've established your belief, we can move on to the other impossibility of proving the existence or nonexistence of God. Unfortunately, it requires a leap of faith either way.
Double think is "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
So, no. They dont both have to be untrue.
Something cannot be both 100% aware and 100% unaware. Thoes are contradictory beliefs. so, yes. It is doublethink.

As far as a leap of faith. The pope said that Catholicism is a faith of reason. That means it can be logically derived, with no leap of faith. I'm refuting Catholicism mainly, and because Jesus directly founded the church, all othe christian faiths are refuted too. What I'm trying to say is (and I know a lot of you will have problems with this), given the existence of god and jesus and the truth of jesuses words, Catholicism is the logical conclusion. That conclusion is false, so the premesies must be false.

Double think is "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

And that implies not only that these beliefs are contradictory but are also lies. Not only that, but it posits that there is such a thing as a knowable objective reality (which is illogical in itself and contradictory) that can be altered. However, given that there is no knowable objective reality and that each of us is altered by our subjective experiences, it means that the concept of doublethink falls apart when speaking in philosophical or religious terms.

So, no. They dont both have to be untrue.

Something cannot be both 100% aware and 100% unaware. Thoes are contradictory beliefs. so, yes. It is doublethink.

"To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them"- A deliberate lie is untrue.

And something can be both 100% aware and unaware if the Law of Non-Contradiction does not apply. And, since God created the laws of the universe, it is entirely possible that the Law does not apply to him (and also does apply at the same time).

As far as a leap of faith. The pope said that Catholicism is a faith of reason. That means it can be logically derived, with no leap of faith. I'm refuting Catholicism mainly, and because Jesus directly founded the church, all othe christian faiths are refuted too. What I'm trying to say is (and I know a lot of you will have problems with this), given the existence of god and jesus and the truth of jesuses words, Catholicism is the logical conclusion. That conclusion is false, so the premesies must be false.

Reason and logic are not the same thing. You can make a reasoned argument without having to resort to hard logic, and logical arguments do not require reason. They are often used together, but just because something is reasonable doesn't mean it entails logic. A reasonable argument can be based on faith if that faith is rational; presumably, what the Pope is saying is that Catholicism is a rational faith and so it is the most reasonable choice.

Rationality does not necessarily require logic when you consider that rationality also includes uncertain but sensible statements based upon probability, personal experience, expecations, and so on. If I experience something, I'm going to go with my perception; that might be illogical if that experience were affected by something like a mental disorder, but it is not irrational to believe my perception.

A good example is the ad hominem attack. It is logically unsound, but may be rational; calling Fred Phelps a hateful asshole is logically unsound, but quite rational and reasonable given our experiences of him.

But if the Father is aware of the hour that will be the end of the world, then he knows it. This isn't an example of God doing something he is unaware of, its an example of God doing something that no one else is aware of.

You forgot the first premise verses, which stated that Jesus is a part of God. Thus, God both prays to himself and keeps secrets from other aspects of the triune personas of God.

What if I told you that the Pope had no idea what the hell he was talking about?

What if I told you that the Pope had no idea what the hell he was talking about?

Well, it sort of throws any attempt to discredit all of Christianity through criticism of Catholicism out the window.

What if I told you that the Pope had no idea what the hell he was talking about?

Well, come on now. He has some idea. Especially Benedict. I think Roman Catholicism is the bunkest of the mainstream denominations and I like Benedict. He's doing more for the Kingdom than John Paul did. John Paul was nice but he compromised too much. Anyway, back on topic....

Double think is "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
So, no. They dont both have to be untrue.
Something cannot be both 100% aware and 100% unaware. Thoes are contradictory beliefs. so, yes. It is doublethink.

As far as a leap of faith. The pope said that Catholicism is a faith of reason. That means it can be logically derived, with no leap of faith. I'm refuting Catholicism mainly, and because Jesus directly founded the church, all othe christian faiths are refuted too. What I'm trying to say is (and I know a lot of you will have problems with this), given the existence of god and jesus and the truth of jesuses words, Catholicism is the logical conclusion. That conclusion is false, so the premesies must be false.

catholicism is a rational WITHIN the system of christian thought. it cant prove that god exists, it cant prove that jesus ever existed, it cant prove that god is omnipotent and omniscient.

what it CAN do is show that every piece of catholic dogma makes logical sense within the revealed aspects of the christian religion. it is all logically derived from the bible. protestants disagree with many of the conclusions but that doesnt mean that they dont make sense.

within that, there are MYSTERIES. these are paradoxes and deeply odd things that are spelled out in the bible and in the logically derived catholic dogma. these mysteries exist because the mind of god is greater than the mind of man. praying and meditating on these mysteries brings us closer to god and to a brief glimpse of how much greater he is than we are.

so we have the mystery of the host being outwardly a piece of pressed bread and in the greater reality the body of christ.

we have jesus being fully both man and god.

we have mary being bodily assumed into heaven where there are no bodies.

its not a cut and dry religion. its not just a tit for tat, quid pro quo, go to church obey the commandments accept jesus as your personal lord and savior and get a "get into heaven free" card. its a deeply spiritual and mysterious religion that can satisfy your need for accessing the unseen world. if that is what you want.

And something can be both 100% aware and unaware if the Law of Non-Contradiction does not apply. And, since God created the laws of the universe, it is entirely possible that the Law does not apply to him (and also does apply at the same time).



Maybe, but if you throw out the law of non-contradiction then you throw out every other law, because avoiding contradiction is the reason those are all there.
So given that if you throw out all the laws it's totally impossible to debate anything(because how can you prove anything wrong if you can't prove a contradiction?), we'll have to assume it for this argument.

Well, come on now. He has some idea. Especially Benedict. I think Roman Catholicism is the bunkest of the mainstream denominations and I like Benedict. He's doing more for the Kingdom than John Paul did. John Paul was nice but he compromised too much. Anyway, back on topic....

There is no such thing as "compromised too much".
If anything, he didn't compromise enough. He didn't take down the total ban on condoms which has indirectly killed thousands of people.

Maybe, but if you throw out the law of non-contradiction then you throw out every other law, because avoiding contradiction is the reason those are all there.

So given that if you throw out all the laws it's totally impossible to debate anything(because how can you prove anything wrong if you can't prove a contradiction?), we'll have to assume it for this argument.

The problem is, God does not adhere to the laws of this universe. That would be a limitation on God that goes against his nature (assuming, of course, that God is both omniscient and omnipotent) Any attempt to discuss God according to the laws of this universe is ultimately going to be futile because we'd be trying to wrap out minds around something way greater than we can conceive and so any conception of God is an abstraction meant to give us some basic understanding of the greater concept.

We can only debate God through human terms, greatly limiting our ability to debate it. As a result, faith in many ways is inherently irrational, since there are so many paradoxes involving faith that we can't resolve easily, if at all.

There is no such thing as "compromised too much".
If anything, he didn't compromise enough. He didn't take down the total ban on condoms which has indirectly killed thousands of people.

If the people had obeyed the ban on being sexually promiscuous, there would be no deaths to begin with. (I'm assuming you're talking about AIDS).

And compromise is nearly always bad. There are very few things in which compromise is acceptable, like what color curtains you should buy.

If the people had obeyed the ban on being sexually promiscuous, there would be no deaths to begin with. (I'm assuming you're talking about AIDS).

And compromise is nearly always bad. There are very few things in which compromise is acceptable, like what color curtains you should buy.

Sex inside marriage does squat if your husband(wife) cheats.

Compromise is always bad except in minor situations, eh? What about, I don't know, let's say every peace treaty in the world? Gonna call war until both countries are so broke their citizens either revolt or are so oppressed they can't better then compromise?

Sex inside marriage does squat if your husband(wife) cheats.

Compromise is always bad except in minor situations, eh? What about, I don't know, let's say every peace treaty in the world? Gonna call war until both countries are so broke their citizens either revolt or are so oppressed they can't better then compromise?

Well, that's sexual promiscuity and it shouldn't happen, and people are suffering because of sin. That doesn't change what is a sin and what is not. I agree that people should be allowed to use non-hormonal birth control, but I applaud the Roman Catholic Church for not changing because of circumstance. They should change doctrine based only on Scripture.

Those aren't compromises. One nation gives in to another's demands. One may be merciful and relax its demands, but there is no compromise. All compromising does is set a precedent for giving in. And there are more times when you should not give in than when you should. It also sets the precedent that truth or what is right does not matter: that so long as everyone gets along, everything's wonderful.

Those aren't compromises. One nation gives in to another's demands. One may be merciful and relax its demands, but there is no compromise.

Yes and no. Sometimes, a compromise is the result of two equal forces backing down at the same time in order to avoid war; I mean, a nuclear war between the USSR and the US would've been infinitely worse than any of the compromises, and there were plenty of them.

If the people had obeyed the ban on being sexually promiscuous, there would be no deaths to begin with. (I'm assuming you're talking about AIDS).

And why should my life be put at risk because my sexual partner is promiscuous?

Yes and no. Sometimes, a compromise is the result of two equal forces backing down at the same time in order to avoid war; I mean, a nuclear war between the USSR and the US would've been infinitely worse than any of the compromises, and there were plenty of them.

I disagree. In each instance there was someone backing down or someone convincing the other that this was the way to go.

And why should my life be put at risk because my sexual partner is promiscuous?

Yes, why should you? You have the right (Biblically as well as civilally) to divorce him/her if you know him/her to be unfaithful.

I disagree. In each instance there was someone backing down or someone convincing the other that this was the way to go.

Well, there were some like the nuclear test ban treaties and SALT I that were mutually negotiated. It was usually the crises that resulted in one side backing down, like the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Prague Spring.

Well, there were some like the nuclear test ban treaties and SALT I that were mutually negotiated. It was usually the crises that resulted in one side backing down, like the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Prague Spring.

But even in those treaties, one side convinced the other that its demands were unreasonable. It wasn't a true compromise.

"We need to reduce the number of missles to x amount by...."

"Now you know that's unreasonable because...."

"You're right, so let's make it y amount..."

But even in those treaties, one side convinced the other that its demands were unreasonable. It wasn't a true compromise.

"We need to reduce the number of missles to x amount by...."

"Now you know that's unreasonable because...."

"You're right, so let's make it y amount..."

But then again, what is a true compromise? Ultimately, every compromise has something to do with each side giving in to some of the other side's objections in order to move forward.

When my cousin, that I have grown up with, died two years ago when he had just turned 15, I just couldn't understand. I questioned God, I questioned my faith, but in the end I came to realize that he was happier with God than he could ever be on earth. I believe that he has everything that he'd ever dreamed of. That doesn't mean that I don't miss him still today, but I still have God to turn to. When I had no one else to turn to, God was there. He comforted me in my sadness, and for that I'm willing to overlook some contradictions and trust in my faith and in my God.

But then again, what is a true compromise? Ultimately, every compromise has something to do with each side giving in to some of the other side's objections in order to move forward.

That's it: giving in. Instead of being convinced of the truth or goodness of the other's demands, s/he gives in.

When my cousin, that I have grown up with, died two years ago when he had just turned 15, I just couldn't understand. I questioned God, I questioned my faith, but in the end I came to realize that he was happier with God than he could ever be on earth. I believe that he has everything that he'd ever dreamed of. That doesn't mean that I don't miss him still today, but I still have God to turn to. When I had no one else to turn to, God was there. He comforted me in my sadness, and for that I'm willing to overlook some contradictions and trust in my faith and in my God.

I would encourage you to try to figure out those paradoxes (they aren't contradictions). :)

I would encourage you to try to figure out those paradoxes (they aren't contradictions). :)
Sorry, wrong word. And I am working on working them out, my youth group leader has helped me a lot, but I've accepted that there's some things that I can't understand, maybe once I'm older I will.

I would encourage you to try to figure out those paradoxes (they aren't contradictions). :)

Nope, that's the point...what is faith but a willingness to make that leap in to the seemingly irrational with full confidence in your relationship with God? And isn't God's union with man in the form of Christ one of the greatest paradoxes of all?

Contemplating those paradoxes will eventually lead to an understanding of God's infinite nature that will reinforce your faith and develop it in to a far stronger and more powerful guiding aspect of your life than it ever was before.

Of course, my views on the matter are increasingly influenced by Kirkegaard, but I find the idea to be very sound and fulfilling in principle..

Sorry, wrong word. And I am working on working them out, my youth group leader has helped me a lot, but I've accepted that there's some things that I can't understand, maybe once I'm older I will.

That's good. Some things we will never understand (at least not in this life).

Nope, that's the point...what is faith but a willingness to make that leap in to the seemingly irrational with full confidence in your relationship with God? And isn't God's union with man in the form of Christ one of the greatest paradoxes of all?

Contemplating those paradoxes will eventually lead to an understanding of God's infinite nature that will reinforce your faith and develop it in to a far stronger and more powerful guiding aspect of your life than it ever was before.

I don't understand why you're correcting me. I don't disagree with you on this.

Of course, my views on the matter are increasingly influenced by Kirkegaard, but I find the idea to be very sound and fulfilling in principle.

I fear him. He's the introduction to Neo-orthodoxy and I want nothing to do with that system of thought.

I don't understand why you're correcting me. I don't disagree with you on this.

Just expanding on what you said because I find the concept fascinating.

I fear him. He's the introduction to Neo-orthodoxy and I want nothing to do with that system of thought.

I don't know, I've seen the idea as providing a better context for faith than the attempt to rationalize something that more than transcends human language or understanding.

That's good. Some things we will never understand (at least not in this life).

Now, I could go in to a big rant about how you should never accept that.
But all that's going to do is lead to another argument that won't change anybody's minds anyway.
So I'll agree to disagree on this one, at least until it's important to the argument we already have going.

Now, I could go in to a big rant about how you should never accept that.
But all that's going to do is lead to another argument that won't change anybody's minds anyway.
So I'll agree to disagree on this one, at least until it's important to the argument we already have going.

Oh, please, you can rant. I go off on them all the time.

*Sits back and smiles* At last, a religious debate that doesn't involve yelling and making people insanely made. (In my ancient history class last year all of the Christians got called stupid for believing in the Bible, :headbang: )

*Sits back and smiles* At last, a religious debate that doesn't involve yelling and making people insanely mad. (In my ancient history class last year all of the Christians got called stupid for believing in the Bible, :headbang: )

*Sits back and smiles* At last, a religious debate that doesn't involve yelling and making people insanely made. (In my ancient history class last year all of the Christians got called stupid for believing in the Bible, :headbang: )

Oh! :p

I was a Calvinist in a class about how Puritans were the devil. It was wonderful, let me tell you.

I was a Calvinist in a class about how Puritans were the devil. It was wonderful, let me tell you.

I bet you just loved it when your class discussed works like The Crucible and you were the Calvinist. :p

Just expanding on what you said because I find the concept fascinating.

Sorry, I didn't see that you responded.

And I apologize that I misunderstood.

I don't know, I've seen the idea as providing a better context for faith than the attempt to rationalize something that more than transcends human language or understanding.

I must admit, I haven't read anything by him, but I've seen what students of him promote, and I find it to be an attempt to undremine the foundations of the traditional Christian faith.

Oh! :p

I was a Calvinist in a class about how Puritans were the devil. It was wonderful, let me tell you.

The person who called us idiots is in my world politics class this year (small school) and we had another conversation/debate about God and whether science and religion are compatible and he wisely kept his mouth shut. In the history class there was only 16 people and I think 3 were devout Catholics and 4 more were really religious, so he got his head snapped off pretty quick.....Question though, how did they get away with calling Puritans the devil in school?

I bet you just loved it when your class discussed works like The Crucible and you were the Calvinist. :p

I didn't read it. I just did the homework and tests and paid attention during in-class discussion. Finally near the end of the year, I told the teacher that I thought the book was very biased. He asked me why, and I told him. He laughed and always addressed all his criticisms to me for the rest of the year.

Sorry, I didn't see that you responded.
And I apologize that I misunderstood.

No problem. Usually, if there's an idea I like or want to expand on, I'll respond to it; it's a pretty common misunderstanding that I'm disagreeing with the original post.

I must admit, I haven't read anything by him, but I've seen what students of him promote, and I find it to be an attempt to undremine the foundations of the traditional Christian faith.

The only problem is that students tend to have either the habit of misinterpreting what they read or changing it to develop their own beliefs. Obviously, it comes down to interpretation; existentialism is not in and of itself against the foundations of traditional Christianity (if anything, Jesus' parables had a uniquely existential bent to them that encouraged contemplation of them).

It depends on what you make of the ideas.

The person who called us idiots is in my world politics class this year (small school) and we had another conversation/debate about God and whether science and religion are compatible and he wisely kept his mouth shut. In the history class there was only 16 people and I think 3 were devout Catholics and 4 more were really religious, so he got his head snapped off pretty quick.....Question though, how did they get away with calling Puritans the devil in school?

Oh, they didn't say that exactly: I was exaggerating. It was just the whole attitude of the text and the teacher and how they continually pointed out the Salem Witch Trials (as if all men don't sin, not that that excuses it) and how Calvinists are in the minority now.

No problem. Usually, if there's an idea I like or want to expand on, I'll respond to it; it's a pretty common misunderstanding that I'm disagreeing with the original post.

I'll keep that in mind for future discussions.

The only problem is that students tend to have either the habit of misinterpreting what they read or changing it to develop their own beliefs. Obviously, it comes down to interpretation; existentialism is not in and of itself against the foundations of traditional Christianity (if anything, Jesus' parables had a uniquely existential bent to them that encouraged contemplation of them).

Again, I'm not familiar with his works, just their products (or their perverted products).

Oh, they didn't say that exactly: I was exaggerating. It was just the whole attitude of the text and the teacher and how they continually pointed out the Salem Witch Trials (as if all men don't sin, not that that excuses it) and how Calvinists are in the minority now.

I doubt I could have put up with it. I don't really hold my thoughts or opinions back, and I don't think I should have to (unless they're incredibly rude and offensive, but I don't have a problem with that). It's too bad that their are classes and teachers like that. Oh, well. I have to edit my brother's essay and then I should probably get some sleep, so see you later, hope to talk to you guys again soon(er or later). :)

True or not, fundamental properties of thought tend to be fairly effective at ensuring that the world as we perceive it corresponds to them - making them true as far as our experience goes, which is the only thing we can claim any real kind of "knowledge" about anyway.

Interesting. So I couldn't, for example, claim to "know" that the law of gravity applies to any place or any time outside of my personal experience of it?

The only thing that is left when you are willing to deny logic is complete incoherence, and incoherence that leads you absolutely nowhere.

Why do you wish to go somewhere? Can you not find truth where you are?

Deny logic and there is no way to recognize the truth.

Interesting. So I couldn't, for example, claim to "know" that the law of gravity applies to any place or any time outside of my personal experience of it?

I don't see why not, as long as you restricted its applicability to your perception of objects and not to objects independent of that perception.

Edit:

Why do you wish to go somewhere? Can you not find truth where you are?

No. Finding truth requires moving beyond nothingness and incoherence.

Deny reason and there is no way to recognize the truth even if you found it.

Deny Christ and there is no way to recognize the truth even if you found it.

Ain't it fun to make blanket assertions about the only way to go about recognizing truth? :)

Deny logic and there is no way to recognize the truth.

Truth in and of itself is unknowable; logic provides us with a means to find the closest approximation of what could be called truth, but is itself limited and doesn't work in every area of knowledge.

Ultimately, it's a helpful part of our epistemological portfolio, but not the arbiter of reality.

I don't see why not, as long as you restricted its applicability to your perception of objects and not to objects independent of that perception.

Ah. So there's no way I could reasonably be a realist?

No. Finding truth requires moving beyond nothingness and incoherence.

Or it just requires perceiving it when it's already right in front of you.

Deny Christ and there is no way to recognize the truth even if you found it.[

Ain't it fun to make blanket assertions about the only way to go about recognizing truth? :)Quite. Still, all human reasoning involves logic and rationality, and those involve being able to see causes and consequences. Predicting said causes/consequences I think is essential to finding truth; being unable to anticipate them is to be irrational, and that does not seem conducive to finding anything, or acting on it even if it was found.

Quite. Still, all reasoning involves logic and rationality, and those involve being able to see causes and consequences. Predicting said causes/consequences I think is essential to finding truth; being unable to anticipate them is to be irrational, and that does not seem conducive to finding anything, or acting on it even if it was found.

It depends on what the truth is; for example, a profound religious or spiritual revelation could very well be irrational but still be true.

Quite. Still, all human reasoning involves logic and rationality, and those involve being able to see causes and consequences. Predicting said causes/consequences I think is essential to finding truth; being unable to anticipate them is to be irrational, and that does not seem conducive to finding anything, or acting on it even if it was found.

Now this is interesting. Essential to truth is the ability to predict? I was not aware that truth was rooted in discerning future events.

Ah. So there's no way I could reasonably be a realist?

I didn't say that... indeed, the position I just stated presupposed realism. It merely denies that we are capable of knowing the nature of objects independent of our perception of them.

Or it just requires perceiving it when it's already right in front of you.

And if you hold it is simultaneously not there, you run into all kinds of problems.

The revelation could not be irrational because only actions are, or can be, rational. Its truth is suspect, however; I don't think you could logically or rationally construct an argument that would validate the spiritual knowledge gained. Such revelations would be inherently unpredictable because the unknown nature of the revealer. Only if the revelation contained information that could be independently examined could its accuracy be revealed. Of course, that accuracy is only as good as our perception of reality, which may be flawed (and probably is, since we are limited beings). However, it's the best we have at the moment, and even if we are objectively wrong, our reasoning may not be flawed within context of those limitations.

Now this is interesting. Essential to truth is the ability to predict? I was not aware that truth was rooted in discerning future events.It is essential to finding and recognizing the truth. Whether the truth is actually predictable or not, if it appears random how could you possibly determine that it is the truth among several possible choices? Thankfully, truth (so far as it can be known) can be ascertained through logic, which is not random, and things can be proven within the axioms of the system.

Were you unable to predict the effects of your actions, then yes, any action of yours would be irrational. Thus, determining truth from a single occurence like a spiritual revelation is not advisable as there is no supporting evidence or experiences to make trust in it a rational act. Irrational trust in something does not make a revelation, or anything else, true. It doesn't assist you finding out if the revelation is more accurately true than other propositions either.

I didn't say that... indeed, the position I just stated presupposed realism. It merely denies that we are capable of knowing the nature of objects independent of our perception of them.

Fair enough.

And if you hold it is simultaneously not there, you run into all kinds of problems.

Care to elaborate on what those are?

The revelation could not be irrational because only actions are, or can be, rational. Its truth is suspect, however; I don't think you could logically or rationally construct an argument that would validate the spiritual knowledge gained.

Indeed. Trying to validate a non-logical event through logical means does seem a bit silly.

Such revelations would be inherently unpredictable because the unknown nature of the revealer. Only if the revelation contained information that could be independently examined could its accuracy be revealed. Of course, that accuracy is only as good as our perception of reality, which may be flawed (and probably is, since we are limited beings). However, it's the best we have at the moment, and even if we are objectively wrong, our reasoning may not be flawed within context of those limitations.

Essentially agreed.

It is essential to finding and recognizing the truth. Whether the truth is actually predictable or not, if it appears random how could you possibly determine that it is the truth among several possible choices? Thankfully, truth (so far as it can be known) can be ascertained through logic, which is not random, and things can be proven within the axioms of the system.

Aye. There's the rub. All sorts of things can be proven within the system. I could, within the Christian belief system, prove that Christ existed. Of course, whether Christ actually existed independent of a system of belief to support it is a more difficult question.

I see two kinds of truth at play here. The first is truth within various networks of propositions that are systems of belief. The second is truth independent of systems of belief, a more objective truth. So do you think that we can reach the latter by way of the former?

Were you unable to predict the effects of your actions, then yes, any action of yours would be irrational. Thus, determining truth from a single occurence like a spiritual revelation is not advisable as there is no supporting evidence or experiences to make trust in it a rational act. Irrational trust in something does not make a revelation, or anything else, true. It doesn't assist you finding out if the revelation is more accurately true than other propositions either.

Ah. So if I assassinated Hitler early in WWII, not being able to predict the immense benefits this would have, it would be an irrational act? And if it is indeed an irrational act, how then are rational acts inherently more privileged than irrational acts?

-Divinity of Christ: How can you both be fully human (which is traditionally thought of as limited and finite) and fully god (which is traditionally though of as unlimited and infinite). Its like saying Jesus was a married bachelor.


Well, I know this may seem unrelated but lets go into the fusion of the anime of Dragon Ball Z. Look, Goten and Trunks where both 50% Human and 50% Saiyan, which made them both of them 100% Halfbreed each.[but to make a halfbreed you need a 100% Human and 100% Saiyan] Well, you fuse them together, and get Gotenks. 50%Human/50%Saiyan+50%Human/50%Saiyan=100%Human/100%Saiyan. Now, 100%+100%=200%...so, according to the numbers, he should have both abilities of human, and saiyan. But in the series, he creates his own, for his character to be unique. But that's besides the point and that's Akira Toriyama spicing things up...anyways, The question is, since he can go Super Saiyan 3, is he saiyan, or halfbreed? Cause Halfbreeds cannot go Super Saiyan 3, instead, they go Mystic...but according to the numbers it seems like he's a halfbreed...

Now, apply 100% God and 100% Man to Jesus, well, he's kinda his own breed right? Formed from a virgin and holy spirit, yes? well, he's a fusion of god and mankind...He has his own special powers, like him resurrecting himself 3 days after he died[at least i think he did it himself, the god side of him] And he changed water to wine, and all the other miracles he has done...such as multiplying the few bread and the fish that was there and fed them to the thousands of people...that's the god part of him. but yet, the shortest verse in the bible, "Jesus wept." Showed the man part of him. And his blood when he was tortured before his crucifixion, also part of the man in him. and his physical body, dying, before his soul went wherever it went...and then his soul returned to his body 3 days later, causing his resurrection...the soul going back, part of the god part in him...and I forget where I'm going with this so I'll leave it at this...:D

Well, I know this may seem unrelated but lets go into the fusion of the anime of Dragon Ball Z. Look, Goten and Trunks where both 50% Human and 50% Saiyan, which made them both of them 100% Halfbreed each.[but to make a halfbreed you need a 100% Human and 100% Saiyan] Well, you fuse them together, and get Gotenks. 50%Human/50%Saiyan+50%Human/50%Saiyan=100%Human/100%Saiyan. Now, 100%+100%=200%...so, according to the numbers, he should have both abilities of human, and saiyan. But in the series, he creates his own, for his character to be unique. But that's besides the point and that's Akira Toriyama spicing things up...anyways, The question is, since he can go Super Saiyan 3, is he saiyan, or halfbreed? Cause Halfbreeds cannot go Super Saiyan 3, instead, they go Mystic...but according to the numbers it seems like he's a halfbreed...

Now, apply 100% God and 100% Man to Jesus, well, he's kinda his own breed right? Formed from a virgin and holy spirit, yes? well, he's a fusion of god and mankind...He has his own special powers, like him resurrecting himself 3 days after he died[at least i think he did it himself, the god side of him] And he changed water to wine, and all the other miracles he has done...such as multiplying the few bread and the fish that was there and fed them to the thousands of people...that's the god part of him. but yet, the shortest verse in the bible, "Jesus wept." Showed the man part of him. And his blood when he was tortured before his crucifixion, also part of the man in him. and his physical body, dying, before his soul went wherever it went...and then his soul returned to his body 3 days later, causing his resurrection...the soul going back, part of the god part in him...and I forget where I'm going with this so I'll leave it at this...:Dwtf

wtf

I agree with the emotion, though certainly not the diction.

Nothing can be created from nothing yet God has always been...

Again Doublethink

Nothing can be created from nothing yet God has always been...

Again Doublethink

Well, that works because God wasn't created. And if He wasn't created, He can't be from nothing.

That's the temporal looking at the eternal. Again, simply because we don't understand how it can be, doesn't mean it cannot be.

Aye. There's the rub. All sorts of things can be proven within the system. I could, within the Christian belief system, prove that Christ existed. Of course, whether Christ actually existed independent of a system of belief to support it is a more difficult question.

I see two kinds of truth at play here. The first is truth within various networks of propositions that are systems of belief. The second is truth independent of systems of belief, a more objective truth. So do you think that we can reach the latter by way of the former?As long as we can see that objective truth as a feature of our world I think its possible that we can get closer to it. However, ones that cannot be verified independently would remain unreliable guesses.

Ah. So if I assassinated Hitler early in WWII, not being able to predict the immense benefits this would have, it would be an irrational act?Definitely irrational. But why would you assassinate him if you had no previous, verifiable knowledge to base that act on? I certaintly wouldn't kill someone without good evidence that it is necessary. Thus you'd have no reason to do it; similar to my example where you'd have no basis for believing the revelation true.

And if it is indeed an irrational act, how then are rational acts inherently more privileged than irrational acts?I'd say that rational acts are produced by intelligence only. A rational act would have a purpose behind it; an irrational one no purpose. If we are capable of rational behavior, why would we do something else? There's no benefit to irrationality.

I'd say that rational acts are produced by intelligence only. A rational act would have a purpose behind it; an irrational one no purpose. If we are capable of rational behavior, why would we do something else? There's no benefit to irrationality.

The benefit of irrationality is that it allows us to make decisions that we might not be able to make if we considered it rationally. Sometimes, you have to take the plunge and go against all rationality in order to do the right thing, or to change the world, or whatever; there are times when rationality not only doesn't work, but is actually detrimental in a teleological or moral sense.

As long as we can see that objective truth as a feature of our world I think its possible that we can get closer to it. However, ones that cannot be verified independently would remain unreliable guesses.

Again with the independent verification. What constitutes independent verification?

Definitely irrational. But why would you assassinate him if you had no previous, verifiable knowledge to base that act on? I certaintly wouldn't kill someone without good evidence that it is necessary. Thus you'd have no reason to do it; similar to my example where you'd have no basis for believing the revelation true.

I might do so based on orders from a government or faction opposed to Hitler that does have good evidence that it is necessary.

I'd say that rational acts are produced by intelligence only. A rational act would have a purpose behind it; an irrational one no purpose. If we are capable of rational behavior, why would we do something else? There's no benefit to irrationality.

No benefit to irrationality? I rather think that assassinating Hitler early in the war would have been quite beneficial, regardless of whether it was done rationally or irrationally.

And as to rational acts having a purpose, I think you may be confusing the rational with the pragmatic. Spending my entire day writing syllogisms is quite a rational act, but certainly not necessarily pragmatic.

Again with the independent verification. What constitutes independent verification?That verification results from multiple instances where you find that a given course of action results in a given result. Something must not only be correct once, but many times in order to be able to rationally act from it. Statistically, the probability of the result will be more accurate the more instances in which you observe it.

In example, for you to rationally believe that a revelation was true, that revelation would have to have effects that you can detect and that allow you to determine if they are congruent with what the revelation says. The more revelations you find correct, the more likely that they will be correct the next time, assuming they came from the same source.

If you act on a revelation that provides no way to determine its accuracy, you will be acting irrationally. Were I suddenly to have a vision of Heaven, I would not consider that to be necessarily a real place. I have no evidence to support it, no multiple instances where I find it true. Many people may support the idea that it exists, but upon questioning they will reveal that they have no experiences of heaven to guide them to this belief. In fact, I do not even find one instance to support it, as it was a vision of an otherworldly place and therefore outside of the possible realm of my knowledge. I might consider seeing a psychiatrist, however. I have reason to believe that visions can be controlled with drugs or therapy.

I might do so based on orders from a government or faction opposed to Hitler that does have good evidence that it is necessary.Then you have evidence, based on the trust you put in your government. That trust is (or should) be based on them telling you the truth (at least in context). That truth is based on determining that one act causes another result predictably. If it wasn't able to predict that then your government wouldn't be too good at giving effective orders, would it?

If your government tells me something is good, I would then seek their justification - in what instances did this action, or something substantially similar, turn out with this kind of positive result? If they are unable to provide that information, why would I believe them? Their guess is as good as mine.

No benefit to irrationality? I rather think that assassinating Hitler early in the war would have been quite beneficial, regardless of whether it was done rationally or irrationally.You are talking about a random occurence. Killing Hitler might be good, but you didn't kill him for that result and you didn't know that history would turn out that way. If you applied this to all of your life, then I daresay that rational actions would indeed be more consistently beneficial than the off-chance that an irrational act would prove helpful. That is, I suspect, the reason we have the capability.

And as to rational acts having a purpose, I think you may be confusing the rational with the pragmatic. Spending my entire day writing syllogisms is quite a rational act, but certainly not necessarily pragmatic.You would be spending all day writing out those syllogisms for what reason? Whether it felt good, you liked using a pen, or whatever, you'd still do it for a reason. I'm not sure you could avoid having a reason; you'd still pick writing syllogisms over doing something else, and I don't think you could be completely random in that choice. Reason comes so naturally that I think it may well be inseparable from the person.

In example, for you to rationally believe that a revelation was true, that revelation would have to have effects that you can detect and that allow you to determine if they are congruent with what the revelation says. The more revelations you find correct, the more likely that they will be correct the next time, assuming they came from the same source.

Ah. So since it's based on what instances I find correct, I am the independent verifier? I'm confused as to how I would constitute an independent verifier for the purposes of obtaining true proposition. Would not an independent verifier for that purpose necessarily be not-me?

Then you have evidence, based on the trust you put in your government. That trust is (or should) be based on them telling you the truth (at least in context). That truth is based on determining that one act causes another result predictably. If it wasn't able to predict that then your government wouldn't be too good at giving effective orders, would it?

And what if I just follow orders because I feel obligated to do so, not because I think that the government is trustworthy? That's hardly uncommon.

You are talking about a random occurence. Killing Hitler might be good, but you didn't kill him for that result and you didn't know that history would turn out that way. If you applied this to all of your life, then I daresay that rational actions would indeed be more consistently beneficial than the off-chance that an irrational act would prove helpful. That is, I suspect, the reason we have the capability.

I'll agree with that.

You would be spending all day writing out those syllogisms for what reason? Whether it felt good, you liked using a pen, or whatever, you'd still do it for a reason. I'm not sure you could avoid having a reason; you'd still pick writing syllogisms over doing something else, and I don't think you could be completely random in that choice. Reason come so naturally that it may well be inseparable from the person.

:D ROFLMAO

I highly suspect you have not met the same people I have. Let's just say that I have "independently verified" that in many cases you are incorrect.

This is exactly why I'm Agnostic. :rolleyes:

Ah. So since it's based on what instances I find correct, I am the independent verifier? I'm confused as to how I would constitute an independent verifier for the purposes of obtaining true proposition. Would not an independent verifier for that purpose necessarily be not-me?Perhaps I should have said that a particular experience could not verify itself, i.e., the vision telling me it's true doesn't mean I should believe it. Sorry for the confusion of that.

I'd say it's more like the summation of your experiences is the verifier. Some experiences are more reliable that others, based on how many times you've experienced them. I think being pulled to the ground by gravity is a very reliable force; it has operated on me ever since I was born (even before that if you count my atoms), and on everyone and everything else I can see or discover. In contrast, the revelation has only one instance, which may or may not be congruent to the rest of my experience.

And what if I just follow orders because I feel obligated to do so, not because I think that the government is trustworthy? That's hardly uncommon.Then I think you would not be acting rationally. If you don't think your government is trustworthy, then any act they advise is suspect. You'd simply be the proxy. I am at a loss to discover why you'd work for those guys; the people should trust the government to act rationally. A government that didn't would not get much done in the way of governing.

:D ROFLMAO

I highly suspect you have not met the same people I have. Let's just say that I have "independently verified" that in many cases you are incorrect.I agree with that sentiment, but I think that kind of person tries to justify his or herself through reason like everyone else, even if they don't quite get there and think it out fully. Groupthink, emotion and all that are powerful forces that may cloud the judgement. I know they do for me on occasion. :)