Post Reply
Page 66 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus IS God? True or false?
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 8:08AM #651
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jul 4, 2012 -- 10:39PM, Jiwe wrote:

This is a perfect indication of how little you've understood. One dimension can't represent all of space, sure. But it takes quite a leap of logic to use that to refute my argument which was in fact about the Trinity - not about space. In other words, I did not - contrary to what you believe - set out to prove that for all instances of the schema p = (x,y,z) one can have x = p.


You're now simply trying to salvage your wreck. It won't work.


Post 296:


Suppose that God is numerically identical to the father, the son and the holy ghost taken collectively, that is G = (F, S, HG).

Now we suppose for a consistency check that G = F (i.e. that God = the Father). Well, then by substitution:

F = (F, S, HG) which by a trivial contraction collapses into:

F = (S, HG).

Or for purely academic interest, it expands into:

F = (G, S, HG) = ((F, S, HG), S, HG) which then trivially collapses into F = F.

So it turns out that by a simple application of plural logic, everything is consistent. I guess a Trinitarian can have her cake and eat it too.



If G = F then F = G, right?


Then G = (F,S,HS) can be written G = (G,S,HS). But what sense does that make? How could the WHOLE be itself plus 2 other things? And numerically it is wrong too.


Also if G = F, then G = S and G = HS too, right? But in that case F = S = HS, something that the Christians deny.


And please explain why 3D space can't be used as an analogy for the Trinity, Christians often like to refer to it though.


Perhaps if you focused less on my profile and my background and more on the logic, it would seem less mysterious. To answer your first question: the variables of a plural logic range over pluralities (and individuals). Before answering the second, let me ask you this: Do you also find this use of contraction mysterious?



God = the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost = God, the Father, God, God, the Son, God, the Holy Ghost, God.

Or this:

James = James, James, James, James,...

That some of the entries on the right hand can be dropped should be obvious, no?



And once again you prove your ignorance as far as the Trinity is concerned.


And what is this equation supposed to mean: James = James, James, James, ... ? Please rephrase that in English.


Also, in the James example there is ONLY James (and it's always the SAME James, just listed x times). Yet allegedly the F, the S, the HS and G are all different in some way! So your analgy breaks down right there.


Try again.


>> Feed your brain with awesome!
“After your death you will be what you were before your birth.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." - Woody Allen
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 8:12AM #652
dio
Posts: 5,036

you see, God is meant to live in you too, and you would be God in the flresh like Jesus, or you can just be your old ego self.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 9:13AM #653
57
Posts: 23,417

Jul 8, 2012 -- 8:12AM, dio wrote:


you see, God is meant to live in you too, and you would be God in the flresh like Jesus, or you can just be your old ego self.




Chapter and verse please.....or kindly retract the false statement.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2012 - 8:19PM #654
Jiwe
Posts: 492

Daldianus,



If G = F then F = G, right?


Yup


Then G = (F,S,HS) can be written G = (G,S,HS).


Yup


But what sense does that make? How could the WHOLE be itself plus 2 other things? 



Not a problem. It's identical to itself and two other things.



And numerically it is wrong too.



Well, let's see. This requites some advanced mathematics: God, Son, Holy Ghost. 1+1+1 = 3. No, still works.




Also if G = F, then G = S and G = HS too, right? But in that case F = S = HS, something that the Christians deny.



Wrong. The assumption was made for a consistency check only. Can God be the Father? Yes. Do we also want to say that the father is the son etc. No. Done.



And please explain why 3D space can't be used as an analogy for the Trinity, Christians often like to refer to it though.



Why would I explain "why 3D space can't be used as an analogy for the Trinity, Christians often like to refer to it though". Do you think I've said anything remotely close to that? Do you think that because several different things can be modelled on the schema p = (x,y,z), that they must be excactly alike in every respect?



And once again you prove your ignorance as far as the Trinity is concerned.



Nice little non sequitur. No argument I see, and I'm not expecting one.




And what is this equation supposed to mean: James = James, James, James, ... ? Please rephrase that in English.


Also, in the James example there is ONLY James (and it's always the SAME James, just listed x times). Yet allegedly the F, the S, the HS and G are all different in some way! So your analgy breaks down right there.


I notice that you for convenience skipped this example: God = (the father, the son, the holy ghost, the father, the father, the son, the son, the son)


The contraction principle is actually so simple even you should in theory get it. For some modelling purposes one can have sets with repetitions. If those repetitions are superfluous you drop them.


James




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 2:26AM #655
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jul 8, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Jiwe wrote:

Not a problem. It's identical to itself and two other things.



How can anything be identical to (itself PLUS two other things). That does not make sense.


X cannot be identical to X + Y + Z, except if Y + Z = 0. So please explain.


Well, let's see. This requites some advanced mathematics: God, Son, Holy Ghost. 1+1+1 = 3. No, still works.



No, it doesn't. 1 is different from 3. The Christian god is One. Not Three. 


Wrong. The assumption was made for a consistency check only. Can God be the Father? Yes. Do we also want to say that the father is the son etc. No. Done.



Actually, you're wrong again. Despite (or because of) your smugness :D


So God does not actually equal to the Father? God simply sometimes performs the role or function of 'the Father'? 'The Father' is a role then, not a separate being or person. Yet Christians would disagree with that. Seems you have to brush up on your Christian theology, my friend ;)


Why would I explain "why 3D space can't be used as an analogy for the Trinity, Christians often like to refer to it though". Do you think I've said anything remotely close to that? Do you think that because several different things can be modelled on the schema p = (x,y,z), that they must be excactly alike in every respect?



Actually yes, you did. You claimed that God = (Father, Son, Spirit), which is the same as saying p = (x,y,z). Then you claimed that x = p (Father = God) on its own. Which clearly is nonsense and logically impossible. So try again.


Nice little non sequitur. No argument I see, and I'm not expecting one.



I'm just pointing out the obvious. You have not really understood what the Trinity concept is actually about. You're in here way over your head.


I notice that you for convenience skipped this example: God = (the father, the son, the holy ghost, the father, the father, the son, the son, the son)



So what? That could be contracted to God = (the father, the son, the ghost). And thus we're again where we started.


The contraction principle is actually so simple even you should in theory get it. For some modelling purposes one can have sets with repetitions. If those repetitions are superfluous you drop them.



Ah, but you can only drop them if they're THE SAME (and why would you have added multiple instances of the same person there anyway??). 'James' here is always referring to the same person called James, right? But 'the Father' is not referring to the same as 'the Son' or 'the Spirit' is. So you can't just drop them. Seriously, do I have to explain this to you? I thought you were a logician and mathematician!?

>> Feed your brain with awesome!
“After your death you will be what you were before your birth.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." - Woody Allen
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 8:30AM #656
Jiwe
Posts: 492

Daldianus,



How can anything be identical to (itself PLUS two other things). That does not make sense.


X cannot be identical to X + Y + Z, except if Y + Z = 0. So please explain.



Well, since I never said it's identical to itself PLUS two other things, this is hardly a problem for me is it. An object can easily be the collection of three things. And it can easily be the collection consisting of itself and two or more other things.



No, it doesn't. 1 is different from 3. The Christian god is One. Not Three. 


I guess you forgot where you are. You're currently discussing the TRINITY - the notion that God is one but consists of three divine persons.




Actually, you're wrong again. Despite (or because of) your smugness :D


Interesting. Should I look forward to a theology lesson? Or are you satisfied with just pulling it out of your ass?



So God does not actually equal to the Father? God simply sometimes performs the role or function of 'the Father'? 'The Father' is a role then, not a separate being or person. Yet Christians would disagree with that. Seems you have to brush up on your Christian theology, my friend ;)



Where on earth are you getting this from?



Actually yes, you did. You claimed that God = (Father, Son, Spirit), which is the same as saying p = (x,y,z).





No. You think they're  the same. But they're not, and I have never claimed that they are.




Then you claimed that x = p (Father = God) on its own. Which clearly is nonsense and logically impossible. So try again.



This is clearly meaningful and consistent in the standard modelling tool plural logic. If you want to refute plural logic, the get to it. Your non sequiturs won't hack it.




I'm just pointing out the obvious. You have not really understood what the Trinity concept is actually about. You're in here way over your head.



Still no argument, eh?




So what? That could be contracted to God = (the father, the son, the ghost). And thus we're again where we started.



Indeed! So close to getting it, yet so infinitely far away....



Ah, but you can only drop them if they're THE SAME (and why would you have added multiple instances of the same person there anyway??). 'James' here is always referring to the same person called James, right? But 'the Father' is not referring to the same as 'the Son' or 'the Spirit' is. So you can't just drop them. Seriously, do I have to explain this to you? I thought you were a logician and mathematician!?



Again, some Christians want God to be the Father. I made the assumption of identity for a consistency check and it works out just fine. Since nobody wants to claim that the father is identical to the son or that the father is the holy ghost, we can safely set these aside.


Now, Daldianus, unless you actually try to address the argument rather than blurting out "that's impossible!" and repeating misunderstandings that have been addressed multiple times now, then we have nothing more to talk about.


James

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 09, 2012 - 8:42AM #657
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jul 9, 2012 -- 8:30AM, Jiwe wrote:

Well, since I never said it's identical to itself PLUS two other things, this is hardly a problem for me is it. An object can easily be the collection of three things. And it can easily be the collection consisting of itself and two or more other things.



But then you're not very coherent in your claims again ... And still, even a certain collection (and that IS a definition already) cannot be this certain collection PLUS other things. Then it's a DIFFERENT collection. That's logically impossible.


I guess you forgot where you are. You're currently discussing the TRINITY - the notion that God is one but consists of three divine persons.



But the Father is not The Trinity, right? But you claimed that the Father is God. Yet God = The Trinity. Seems you have to fix your argument :D We're waiting.


Interesting. Should I look forward to a theology lesson? Or are you satisfied with just pulling it out of your ass?



You're kind of adorable when you try to be insulting ;)


Where on earth are you getting this from?



From your previous statements.


No. You think they're  the same. But they're not, and I have never claimed that they are.



So the equation God = (Father, Son, Spirit) is not correct anymore? Or don't you claim that The Father = God anymore?


This is clearly meaningful and consistent in the standard modelling tool plural logic. If you want to refute plural logic, the get to it. Your non sequiturs won't hack it.



Please explain how that is logical and consistent. It doesn't work for 3D space so why would it work with 'the Trinity'? The x coordinate cannot, by itself, represent the actual point in space.


So what? That could be contracted to God = (the father, the son, the ghost). And thus we're again where we started.


Indeed! So close to getting it, yet so infinitely far away....



What's to get then? Please explain.


Again, some Christians want God to be the Father. I made the assumption of identity for a consistency check and it works out just fine. Since nobody wants to claim that the father is identical to the son or that the father is the holy ghost, we can safely set these aside.



So if the Father is not identical to the Son nor the Spirit then how can you drop the Son and the Spirit from the equation? Because in your analogy James is James is James. Those James are all identical.


Now, Daldianus, unless you actually try to address the argument rather than blurting out "that's impossible!" and repeating misunderstandings that have been addressed multiple times now, then we have nothing more to talk about.



Looking for an escape already? :D

>> Feed your brain with awesome!
“After your death you will be what you were before your birth.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." - Woody Allen
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 66 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook