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 44 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 ... 66 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus IS God? True or false?
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 2:23AM #431
Daldianus
Posts: 32,447

Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:14AM, Adelphe wrote:

Rather, I'd say "you really have an issue with" predicate/identity.



Why?


You claimed that we could say that following:  G = F resp. F = G and G = S resp. S = G and HS = G resp. G = HS. You do know what the = sign means, Adelphe? 


Also this here is still relevant: 'deity'? You're introducing a new word/concept here! You're trying to cheat again.


'G' stands for 'God' in that equation, not 'deity'. So what is the difference between 'God' and 'deity' in your statement there?

>> 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
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 2:40AM #432
Daldianus
Posts: 32,447

James/Jiwe: you could also address the above challenge to Adelphe and try to help your friend out.

>> 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
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:18AM #433
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:13AM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Blü wrote:


James


Ok, so you haven't understood the word "numerical identity". Start with that, look at some logic, and maybe you have a shot at understanding the argument. So far you're pretty  far from it.


I have an understanding of the argument.


It leads to the conclusions I listed, which show your post is a nonsense.


Which is fair enough, since the Trinity is a nonsense.




Exactly!!!


And He calls himself a Math teacher?/?/?/?/?


 


 


I have never seen an "F" will disappear by itself in a Math equation. Unless, you have a magic and you want it to disappear. 


I give it an “F” grade.




I don't have the slightest doubt that you've never seen an F disappear by itself from a math equation.


Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen all the time. Here are some basic examples of the contraction principle I used, from other areas of math/logic:


The probability of a proposition or event A is identical to the probability of A&A. I.e.


P(A) = P(A&A). See! One A just dropped out by the magic of common sense!


Another one: Let A be a binary proposition (i.e. it's either true or false). Then the truth value of A is the same as the truth value of the conjunction A and A. For short: A = AA (the rule is called idempotence btw.)


Another: in formal logic every true statement implies every other true statement. So let A and B both be true. Then A = AB! (the truth value of A is the same as the truth value of the conjunction of A and B).


Happy to introduce you to something completely new!


James

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:21AM #434
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:13AM, Blü wrote:


Mario


I waded through the first few pages of your Bohn link before the shortness of life crossed my mind.


At least I could extract his version of the problem, towit -


[0] G = F+ S+ Gh

BUT at the same time, each of F, S and Gh is uncreated, incomprensible, eternal, almighty.


BUT there are not three uncreateds, three incomprehensibles, three eternals, three almighties


BUT only one of each.


Then we have


[1] G=F
[2] G=S
[3] G=Gh


but there aren't three Gs, only one, and yet


[4] F≠S
[5] F≠Gh
[6] S≠Gh


From these arise -


(a) the 'Trinitarian Paradox' eg -


[1] G=F and


[2] G=S so


G=F=S whence


F=S, which contradicts [4] F≠S, and


(b) the 'Paradox of Cardinalities' , meaning [0] can't be squared with [1-3] because of [4-6]





*Massivefrickenfacepalm!!*


Of course it has shortness of life when you read what the problem is and not the solution!


Unfrickinbelievable...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:24AM #435
Jiwe
Posts: 535

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:00AM, Blü wrote:


James


I asked you to explain any important difference you saw between G = (F, S, Gh) and G = F + S + Gh in this context.


But none of your subsequent posts addresses it.  A vague reference to building materials explains nothing.


What important difference do you assert?






I see we have to take this to the most basic level. Do you remember first grade math?


You have an apple and an orange, Blu. What's their sum?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 4:26AM #436
Daldianus
Posts: 32,447

Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:24AM, Jiwe wrote:

I see we have to take this to the most basic level. Do you remember first grade math?


You have an apple and an orange, Blu. What's their sum?




Jiwe, would you please comment on this:


If p=(x,y,z) then x alone cannot be or represent p.

>> 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
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 5:13AM #437
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,177

Blü


Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:13AM, Blü wrote:

I waded through the first few pages of your Bohn link before the shortness of life crossed my mind.


I am sure you have spent more time trying to make sense of Jiwe's clumsy posts, than you would have spent, reading properly Bohn's article, which, once again, is at least clear ...


At least I could extract his version of the problem, to wit -


[0] G = F+ S+ Gh


Nowhere in Bohn's paper do you find the above [0] equality. That you insist seeing it where it isn't, may also explain why you cannot distinguish between G = (F, S, Gh) and G = F + S + Gh (see Blü's post #424).


(F, S, Gh) expresses a collection of objects, whereas F + S + Gh expresses the summation of those same objects. If you are at all familiar with the basics of set theory you should know the difference.


Suppose I have a basket (a set) of apples A, B, C.


If I write (A, B, C) I simply refer to that set of apples, without any regard to their number (more properly, to the "cardinality" of the set).


If I write A + B + C, I write this precisely in regard to their number (more properly, to the "cardinality" of the set), which, in this case is obviously "3".


I hope this settles the question for good.

BUT at the same time, each of F, S and Gh is uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty.


BUT there are not three uncreateds, three incomprehensibles, three eternals, three almighties


BUT only one of each.


Well, yeah, this is Bohn concession to the hocus-pocus of the "Athanasian Creed".


BTW, the proper "Athanasian" version of your third "BUT" is:


BUT only one of each [uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty]


Then we have


[1] G=F
[2] G=S
[3] G=Gh


but there aren't three Gs, only one, and yet


[4] F≠S
[5] F≠Gh
[6] S≠Gh


From these arise -


(a) the 'Trinitarian Paradox' eg -


[1] G=F and


[2] G=S so


G=F=S whence


F=S, which contradicts [4] F≠S, and


(b) the 'Paradox of Cardinalities' , meaning [0] can't be squared with [1-3] because of [4-6]


Herein lies Bohn's biggest blunder, because the above symbolic propositions [1:6] are supposed to be the equivalent "translation" of the "trinitarian" first part of the "Athanasian Creed", and specifically:


[AC=] “... the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God” <=> [1], [2], [3]


[AC] “... there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit” <=> [4], [5], [6]


It is immediately evident that [AC=] is improper, that is [1], [2], [3] are NOT a proper symbolic representation of the sentence “... the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God”, UNLESS:


[R] the relationships expressed by the sign "=" in [1:3] are supposed reversible, so that ([1] G=F; [2] G=S; [3] G=Gh) is fully equivalent to ([1R] F=G; [2R] S=G; [3R] Gh=G), this latter ONLY being a proper, direct "translation" of [AC=].


[P]  the sign "=" in [1R:3R] is interpreted as predicate rather than identity


Unfortunately for Bohn, while the relationship of identity is, indeed, reversible, the relationship of predication (?) is obviously irreversible, so all his construction is rather shaky, and his "demonstrations" based on a shaky foundation.


BTW, and once again, your [0] simply does NOT exist in Bohn's article.


Conclusion?


In spite of his blunders, Bohn's article correctly affirms that the "unity" and the "trinity" of God are a (rather trivial) question of POV:


IF we consider the "collective" then God is one;


IF we consider the "persons", then God is three.


Does Bohn's article elucidate ALL the aspects of the "Athanasian Creed"?


For heaven's sake, NO!


Just one example. The "Athanasian Creed" affirms ...


[ACE] “The Father eternal, the Son, eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.”


Why? The "Athanasian Creed" does NOT explain, and, unfortunately, Einar Duenger Bohn does NOT explain either.


Let's go back to our basket of apples A, B, C. Suppose that I found written ...


[APR] “Apple A red, apple B red and apple C red. And yet they are not three reds, but one red.” [#]


While Christians have been trained to respect and bow down to [ACE] as "mysterious", all normal people (including Christians) would immediately recognize [APR] as stupid, and/or absurd and/or hocus-pocus ...


MdS


[#] The normal use of the English language would require to write "three red [objects]", "one red [object]", but that would have meant departing from the form of the "Athanasian Creed" precisely where its ambiguous senselessnes lies.

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Forever, O LORD, Your word [dabar] stands in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:21AM #438
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:45PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... definitely ... er ... adoring ...


... actually, more like a ... er ... groupie ...


MdS




:/

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:18PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Adelphe wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 1:23PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

If anyone is seriously interested ...


... in the application of plural logic to the "trinity", then I recommend the reading of this online article, The Logic of the Trinity, 2011, by Einar Duenger Bohn, University of Oslo (PDF @ folk.uio.no).


It is rather long (12 pages), but at least it's clear (unlike the clumsy and confused hotchpotch that we have received here ...).


It also takes care of some objections, although the problem of Latin Trinitarianism (LT) vs Social Trinitarianism (ST) is dealt with most unconvincingly, but then again, that is not so much a logical problem but the intrinsic ambiguity of the doctrine of the "trinity" as fixed by the Cappadocian scoundrels ("[God is] one ousia in three hypostases").


So, the question remains open: is the "orthodox" image of the "trinity" more like this ... [image: Three Headed Man] ...


... or more like ... [image: Rublev's Trinity] ... this?


Well, the article is of no help, I'm afraid.


Actually, nothing is, I'm afraid ...


First, I'm sure many of us appreciate your introduction, some comments, your opinion, and then a link rather than a google search "trinity illogical" or something.


I NEVER link "a google search ... or something", unless it is with the specific purpose of showing how many "hits" one gets with a specific search string.




I meant a resulting paste from that search.


LOL! Actually, ONLY 1631 years, at the very most ...


Once again, it is NOT the "logic" of the "trinity" that I have an issue with (of course when it is properly presented ...), it is ...




I know that--to your credit.



• that the Doctrine of Trinity has no foundation upon the basis of the Old Testament, and not even of the New testament;
• that there is an obvious evolution that has carried from the first formulations, tied to the necessity to distinguish the role and the nature of Jesus Christ with regard to God the Father, to the definitive formulation (three distinct persons, co-equal, and co-eternal);
• that there are obvious contributions from stoic philosophy, as well as middle-platonic, neo-platonic in the various Trinitarian formulations;
• that the complete formulation of the dogma (as can be found in the s.c. Athanasian Creed) erects a true verbal "eidolon" [idol] to the Trinity.


... and finally, but as important, that it is incompatible with Incarnation + Resurrection.


Besides, as already remarked, the problem of Latin Trinitarianism (LT) vs Social Trinitarianism (ST) remains open and, what is worse, the two "trinitarianisms" are incompatible.


MdS





No, of course LT and ST are not "incompatible."  How do you reach that conclusion?


"...Although Social Trinitarianism and Latin Trinitarianism fall within the scope of Nicene orthodoxy, it may be instructive to consider the difference in heterodox views that emerge in the East and West."


www.iep.utm.edu/trinity/

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
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:25AM #439
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:19PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

...


As for objections, they are not of logical nature, but of adequacy: the "Athanasian model" (actually pseudo-Athanasian), is not sufficient, per se, to choose between Latin Trinitarianism (LT) vs Social Trinitarianism (ST) — BTW they are incompatible —...



Why do you see the need to "choose between" (apart from that already mentioned in the prior post that they're not incompatible)?

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
5 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:29AM #440
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:13AM, Blü wrote:


Mario


I waded through the first few pages of your Bohn link before the shortness of life crossed my mind...




LOL!

Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:21AM, Jiwe wrote:


*Massivefrickenfacepalm!!*...




LOL!


Laughing

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
Page 44 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 ... 66 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook