Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 30 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 66 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus IS God? True or false?
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 12:53PM #291
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:43PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Spectacular straw-man cum her-herring!


The question, here, is that there are two different and irreconcilable statements:


"YHWH is actually the SON"[Dave, #201]


"YHWH is {Father, Son, Holy Spirit}" [Adelphe, everywhere]


MdS


P.S. There may be a certain number of people reading this thread, who may not like sophistic subterfuges or flagrant falsities ...




First, why should I care that there "are two different and irreconcilable statements."  You seem to find in this deep meaning.  Are you numb to the "two different and irreconcilable statements" that are de rigueur for this board--indeed any of the debate forums here?


Second, are you going to continue to simply prove what I already said? 


1.  Actually, that could be argued.  That's much too advanced for "this crowd", however.


2.  You could only really even try to do this on Christian-to-Christian Debate.  But even there you can expect at least some degree of the interruption in the form of inanity often present here (by JW's, some unitarians, etc.)"




Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 12:56PM #292
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:45PM, davelaw40 wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:21PM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 12:09PM, davelaw40 wrote:


mds has correctly stated my position



the Father exists outside time and space



YHWH revealed Himself inside time and space


so, YHWH can NOT be the FATHER




Orthodox Christianity agrees God "exists outside time and space."


But they certainly agree He can (did, and does) intervene.


The above seems as if "the Father" is detached from it all, looking at everything rather like we might at a terrarium or ant farm.


So what's the Father's role in this view?  Or is there none?




perspective


not subject to time or space


all times are now




Affirmed by orthodox Christianity, as well.


Jesus' flesh is the only thing that was "subject to time and space."


Therefore, I'm going to say that your:


"YHWH revealed Himself inside time and space


so, YHWH can NOT be the FATHER"


is not a necessary inference/conclusion.




Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:00PM #293
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 10, 2012 -- 8:01PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


James


Jun 10, 2012 -- 4:46PM, Jiwe wrote:

Here's an excerpt from the Athanasian creed. I use that because it gives a succinct statement of the logical pattern I'm after:


Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God.


Predicative statements say something about an object. They describe it or attribute a property to it and have the logical form F(x) - read the object x is F (or is an F, or has F). For instance, in "the sky is blue". The sky is the object, and blueness is predicated of it. I trust there is no temptation to read this as the sky being numerically identical with the color blue?


In the creed we encounter the predicates uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty and finally God.


The logical form of the first batch is of the predicative form: the Father is F, the son is F and the holy spirit is F. And yet they are not three Fs, but one F (where F stands respectively for uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal and almighty). The pattern here is perfectly clear and there is no indication that one should read "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God" any differently as numerical (i.e. strict) identity, that is as the Father = God, the son = God and the Holy Ghost = God. No reason whatsoever. There is instead every reason to read it predicatively.


However we can read the following as a strict numerical identity: God = (the father, the son, the holy ghost) in the same way we say that a point p in the plane is strictly identical to its coordinates taken collectively, i.e. p = (x,y,z).


So, after indulging on the differences of "is" as predicate and as identity, we finally have an identity/equality for God.


In fact, this time, rather than from numbers, you find an analogy for this identity/equality in analytic geometry.


As I see it, without putting in question the logical aspects, there are (at least) two weaknesses in your image.


First, when we describe tri-dimensional space, the chosen set of co-ordinates axes (x, y, z) is entirely arbitrary, so much so that the description of a point (or, more in general, any Euclidean geometrical object) in terms of (x, y, z), can be transformed in its perfectly equivalent description referred to another set of co-ordinates (u, v, w). It is totally unclear what would be equivalent —or even if at all possible— to this "change of co-ordinates" for the "trinity".


Second, it is not very clear to what the three co-ordinates of a point (or, more in general, any Euclidean geometrical object) would correspond in the case of God. [#] One thing, though, appears compellingly, from your image: far from being distinct from each other (like three persons would be, in the usual sense of the word "person"), the three "co-ordinates" of God (whatever they may be), would be like mere "projections" of the same "point" on three normal axes. The overwhelming impression that one derives from all this is that of modalism.


MdS


[#] Perhaps one may speculate fantasize (as some have done) that the three "axes of God" are "unbegottenness", "begottenness" and "procession". I am happy to leave this sort of overwrought fantasies to theologians ...




Don't take the geometry analogy to far. I never claimed isomorphism. It's just a familiar case of plural identity. 1km = 1000m is another.


And no, it's not modalism. This solution allows that there are literally speaking three divine persons. Not three modes of being of one God.



James

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:02PM #294
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 10, 2012 -- 11:12PM, Adelphe wrote:


napalm *facepalm*


LOL, James.


Have you ever seen such fatuousness?


I wonder how some people make it through the day, apparently all befuddled by the "is" of predication and the "is" of identity.


"Joe is sleeping, therefore, sleeping is Joe." 


"I can't wake my daughter right now, she's Joe."


LOL!


fwiw...


The Is of Predication


Consider the statement:


Socrates is a man.

This means:


The object named Socrates has the property of being a man.

Thus we see that is here means has the property of being.


In this context, is here is called the is of predication.



The Is of Identity


Compare this with the sentence:


Socrates is the philosopher who taught Plato.

We could of course reword this as:


The object named Socrates has the property of being the philosopher who taught Plato.

www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Predic...






Yeah, it's weird!

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:10PM #295
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:02PM, Jiwe wrote:


Jun 10, 2012 -- 11:12PM, Adelphe wrote:


napalm *facepalm*


LOL, James.


Have you ever seen such fatuousness?


I wonder how some people make it through the day, apparently all befuddled by the "is" of predication and the "is" of identity.


"Joe is sleeping, therefore, sleeping is Joe." 


"I can't wake my daughter right now, she's Joe."


LOL!


fwiw...


The Is of Predication


Consider the statement:


Socrates is a man.

This means:


The object named Socrates has the property of being a man.

Thus we see that is here means has the property of being.


In this context, is here is called the is of predication.



The Is of Identity


Compare this with the sentence:


Socrates is the philosopher who taught Plato.

We could of course reword this as:


The object named Socrates has the property of being the philosopher who taught Plato.

www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Predic...






Yeah, it's weird!




Well I am going to say (even though Daldianus didn't think it mattered) that it might matter whether or not you're...American (--LOL!  Isn't that odd?  I'll explain.)  But the 2 people here who seem to "object" (don't know if that's the right word, but you know what I mean) aren't native speakers of English--mds isn't one either (although his English is, of course, stunningly beautiful--perfect (and unusually precise), I'd add.)


Now Blu?  Well he (at least I believe based on what I know) is a native English speaker.  But I don't think he's from the US.  Little things like odd spellings (British spellings you might find as in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.) and unusual idioms.


But, that's my guess and, again, I'm happy to be corrected.  I simply can't offer any other reason for why these two senses of "is" aren't even just simply intuitive but maybe they or someone else can.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:31PM #296
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Blü wrote:


Adelphe


p=(x,y,z)


Now please derive x=p from that, showing us all the steps.





I'll do it. 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.


James

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:39PM #297
Qwesam
Posts: 3,369

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Jiwe wrote:

Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Blü wrote:


Adelphe


p=(x,y,z)


Now please derive x=p from that, showing us all the steps.





I'll do it. 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.


James


What kind of Math are you using?


 


 

***Watching Foxnews makes you dumb and dumber than your friends who watch NO News. It is on the survey!

***Don’t listen to what Republicans say, look what they do to Women’s rights.

***Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims is far worse.

Garrett Epps
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:50PM #298
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:39PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Jiwe wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Blü wrote:


Adelphe


p=(x,y,z)


Now please derive x=p from that, showing us all the steps.





I'll do it. 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.


James




What kind of Math are you using?


 


 




Plural logic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 2:04PM #299
Qwesam
Posts: 3,369

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:50PM, Jiwe wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:39PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Jiwe wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Blü wrote:


Adelphe


p=(x,y,z)


Now please derive x=p from that, showing us all the steps.





I'll do it. 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.


James




What kind of Math are you using?


 


 




Plural logic.




 


No wonder why it is pure contradictory:


 


www.oysteinlinnebo.org/burgess.pdf

***Watching Foxnews makes you dumb and dumber than your friends who watch NO News. It is on the survey!

***Don’t listen to what Republicans say, look what they do to Women’s rights.

***Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims is far worse.

Garrett Epps
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 2:26PM #300
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 11, 2012 -- 2:04PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:50PM, Jiwe wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:39PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Jiwe wrote:


Jun 11, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Blü wrote:


Adelphe


p=(x,y,z)


Now please derive x=p from that, showing us all the steps.





I'll do it. 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.


James




What kind of Math are you using?


 


 




Plural logic.



No wonder why it is pure contradictory: www.oysteinlinnebo.org/burgess.pdf 2 The Problem of Plural Parameters Although Burgess's account motivates the axioms of set theory in a natural and elegant way, I will now give two arguments that this account also motivates the view that every plurality forms a set. In a theory such as Burgess's with an unrestricted plural comprehension scheme (P-Comp), this view leads straight to contradiction. To see this, let rr be the sets that are not elements of themselves, and let r be the set that they form. Then r is an element of itself just in case it isn't. My ¯rst argument concerns the behavior of plural parameters under the reinterpretations that Burgess uses to motivate his re°ection principle. A \reinterpretation," in the relevant sense, is just a matter of restricting quanti¯ers: the reference of parameters and the interpre- tation of predicates (that is, their satisfaction conditions) are kept ¯xed. To make this clear, I will refer to such reinterpretations as quanti¯er-reinterpretations or q-reinterpretations for short. The domain associated with any q-reinterpretation of a formula © must thus contain the referents of all parameters occurring in ©. For instance, the domain associated with any q-reinterpretation of `Socrates is mortal' must contain Socrates. Likewise, the domain asso- ciated with any q-reinterpretation of `Socrates and Plato agreed' must contain both Socrates and Plato. This means that the motivation Burgess provides for his re°ection principle (Re°) also motivates a stronger re°ection principle. For simplicity, I will only state this stronger principle for a formula © whose only parameter is uu; the general case is an obvious extension. (Re°0) 8uu[© ! 9t(uu 22 t ^ ©t] But given this re°ection principle, we can easily prove that every plurality forms a set. Let aa be an arbitrary plurality, and let © be a formula containing a plural parameter referring to aa. © can then be q-reinterpreted as being about a domain that forms a set t. But this set must contain the referents of all parameters occurring in this formula, including the plural ones|as made explicit in (Re°0). It thus follows that aa must be contained in the set t. By Separation, we then get that aa form a set. Finally, since aa were arbitrary, it follows that every plurality forms a set. I will refer to this as the Problem of Plural Parameters. I will now consider three objections to this argument. Firstly, it may be objected that even if my argument works, this just shows that the re°ection scheme must be restricted to formulas that don't contain plural parameters. The most natural such restriction would be to limit the re°ection principle to sentences, that is, to formulas containing neither singular nor plural parameters. However, the resulting re°ection principle would be too weak for Burgess's purposes, as his account uses re°ection on formulas containing singular parameters.11 Consider the proof of the axiom of Pairing that Burgess adopts from Bernays. Given any two objects a and b, we have the following logical truth



Man, how unlucky can you get! I've both studied with and worked with Oystein Smile. What he's addressing in that paper is a formal extension of ZFC set theory (the standard set theory in which math is represented) based on plural logic rather than second order logic, and in particular certain formulas called comprehension formulas or abstraction principles. Informally they say that every formula defines a set, or in this setting that every plurality defines a set. That leads to a contradiction analogous to Russell's Paradox. The problem is with unrestricted use of these comprehension formulas - not plural logic.


Duh!

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 30 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 66 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook