Post Reply
Page 63 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus IS God? True or false?
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:15AM #621
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:38AM, Ed.W wrote:

"God" is the what it is, "Jesus" is the who it is.


"P" could = human (the what)


"x,y,z" could = men, women, children (the who)



Now aren't men human?  Are men women?  Aren't women human?  Are women men?


Therefore x, y, and z = p and x does not equal y or z.


Simple.  Why is it so hard for you?



Because it does not make any logical sense.


'P' is supposed to be 'God' and this 'God' is supposed to be a specific, unique, independent being. So your analogy with 'human' (a quality, an attribute) already breaks down.


Also, for it to even make sense it would have to be P = Mankind and then it would be P = (x,y). Yet x or z on their own would NOT represent the whole of Mankind ( = P).


So your math still does not work 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
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:16AM #622
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:38AM, Ed.W wrote:

"God" is the what it is, "Jesus" is the who it is.


"P" could = human (the what)


"x,y,z" could = men, women, children (the who)


Now aren't men human?  Are men women?  Aren't women human?  Are women men?


Therefore x, y, and z = p and x does not equal y or z.


Simple.  Why is it so hard for you?




Because it does not make any logical sense.


'P' is supposed to be 'God' and this 'God' is supposed to be a specific, unique, independent being. So your analogy with 'human' (a quality, an attribute) already breaks down.


Also, for it to even make sense it would have to be P = Mankind and then it would be P = (x,y). Yet x or z on their own would NOT represent the whole of Mankind ( = P).


So your math still does not work 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
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:36AM #623
Ed.W
Posts: 9,446

Jun 28, 2012 -- 4:16AM, Daldianus wrote:


Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:38AM, Ed.W wrote:

"God" is the what it is, "Jesus" is the who it is.


"P" could = human (the what)


"x,y,z" could = men, women, children (the who)


Now aren't men human?  Are men women?  Aren't women human?  Are women men?


Therefore x, y, and z = p and x does not equal y or z.


Simple.  Why is it so hard for you?




Because it does not make any logical sense.


'P' is supposed to be 'God' and this 'God' is supposed to be a specific, unique, independent being. So your analogy with 'human' (a quality, an attribute) already breaks down.


Also, for it to even make sense it would have to be P = Mankind and then it would be P = (x,y). Yet x or z on their own would NOT represent the whole of Mankind ( = P).


So your math still does not work out.




Nope.  It all works out.  You just don't like how simple it really is.


You had this idea that you are going to actually use our own documents to disprove our doctrine.  It's called hubris.


(Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities.)


I had P representing human, not "mankind".  The fact that you intentionally switched the term to one you felt you could more easily counter proves that you agree my terms are difficult to counter.  I can change the terms to anything I want, I don't have to find one related to God at all, in order to answer your question.  "Human" was in no way a parallel to God, but a parallel to a "what".


If I could change anything about the new analogy, I'd change man, woman and child to people's names (real "whos") and leave P as "human".  But I didn't want to confuse you, since you tend to reify analogies, knowing that will lead to their "breaking down". 


Also this unwarranted injection of "algebra" into this matter is done because you know that you can't mathematically represent the relationship between several persons.  You are the only one that thinks there is any math that "should" work out.  Set theory, ok.  Math, no.



I'm beginning to think you don't want to understand. 







‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:57AM #624
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jun 28, 2012 -- 4:36AM, Ed.W wrote:

Nope.  It all works out.  You just don't like how simple it really is.



I'm sorry but no, it does not work out. You simply think it does because your using the same word 'God' in totally different ways. But that's not consistent, not coherent and not honest. 


You had this idea that you are going to actually use our own documents to disprove our doctrine.  It's called hubris.


(Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities.)



Nonsense.


I had P representing human, not "mankind".  The fact that you intentionally switched the term to one you felt you could more easily counter proves that you agree my terms are difficult to counter.



Nope. I corrected your analogy as far as that was possible.


'Human' is a QUALITY. 'God' is supposed to be a unique, specific, indepedent being/entity. Two totally different things. The equivalent to 'human' would be 'divine'. Not 'God'.


I can change the terms to anything I want, I don't have to find one related to God at all, in order to answer your question.  "Human" was in no way a parallel to God, but a parallel to a "what".



See above. Your analogy still fails.


If I could change anything about the new analogy, I'd change man, woman and child to people's names (real "whos") and leave P as "human".  But I didn't want to confuse you, since you tend to reify analogies, knowing that will lead to their "breaking down".



So you would write it like this: human = (John, Jane, Mark)


But what's nonsense. What's that actually supposed to mean? That 'human' is the collective name for John, Jane and Mark? 


Also this unwarranted injection of "algebra" into this matter is done because you know that you can't mathematically represent the relationship between several persons.  You are the only one that thinks there is any math that "should" work out.  Set theory, ok.  Math, no.



No, math is used here because people claimed that the Trinity could be explained logically and rationally. It obviously can't.


Also, it was Jiwe who first came up with that equation. Claiming it made sense. lol


I'm beginning to think you don't want to understand.



Funny, I was starting to think the same about you! Although I rather think that you're not able to understand :( At least not right now.

>> 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  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 10:18AM #625
Ed.W
Posts: 9,446

The Trinity proclaims one Being in three Persons.


We always get, "how can one being be three beings, or three persons be one person?"


We said neither of those silly things.  ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS.



The Being is the what, the Being is God.  The Persons are the who, Son, Spirit, & Father.


Please try to object to something in THIS post, rather than constructing flawed math problems.  The appeal to "logic" and "reason" does not imply mathematics. 

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:33PM #626
Jiwe
Posts: 498

Daldianus,


No, math is used here because people claimed that the Trinity could be explained logically and rationally. It obviously can't.


Also, it was Jiwe who first came up with that equation. Claiming it made sense. lol



Actually, logic was used and I didn't claim anything. I proved it. If it's so obvious to you that there's a mistake, why don't you share? Shouldn't be to hard, eh?


James

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 6:45AM #627
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jun 28, 2012 -- 4:33PM, Jiwe wrote:


Daldianus,


No, math is used here because people claimed that the Trinity could be explained logically and rationally. It obviously can't.


Also, it was Jiwe who first came up with that equation. Claiming it made sense. lol



Actually, logic was used and I didn't claim anything. I proved it. If it's so obvious to you that there's a mistake, why don't you share? Shouldn't be to hard, eh?


James




James, will you ever explain how if p = (x,y,z) x can then be or represent p on its own?


And if we take p as space and x, y and z as the three dimensions: one dimension can never be or represent the whole space.


What you're claiming is nonsense.


So please prove how x = p if p = (x,y,z).


We're waiting :)

>> 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  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 6:47AM #628
Daldianus
Posts: 32,442

Jun 28, 2012 -- 10:18AM, Ed.W wrote:


The Trinity proclaims one Being in three Persons.


We always get, "how can one being be three beings, or three persons be one person?"


We said neither of those silly things.  ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS.


The Being is the what, the Being is God.  The Persons are the who, Son, Spirit, & Father.


Please try to object to something in THIS post, rather than constructing flawed math problems.  The appeal to "logic" and "reason" does not imply mathematics. 




Please define 'being' and 'person' then, Ed. Thank you.


Also if you say 'God' do you mean a specific, unique, independent entity that could be referred to as 'him'? Or is 'God' just an overarching label like 'family' or 'humankind'?

>> 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  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 1:39PM #629
Ed.W
Posts: 9,446

Jun 29, 2012 -- 6:47AM, Daldianus wrote:


Jun 28, 2012 -- 10:18AM, Ed.W wrote:


The Trinity proclaims one Being in three Persons.


We always get, "how can one being be three beings, or three persons be one person?"


We said neither of those silly things.  ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS.


The Being is the what, the Being is God.  The Persons are the who, Son, Spirit, & Father.


Please try to object to something in THIS post, rather than constructing flawed math problems.  The appeal to "logic" and "reason" does not imply mathematics. 




Please define 'being' and 'person' then, Ed. Thank you.


Also if you say 'God' do you mean a specific, unique, independent entity that could be referred to as 'him'? Or is 'God' just an overarching label like 'family' or 'humankind'?




One Being (which is God*) in three Persons.


A "Being" is the essence of something.  Human, tree, rock, dog, God.


A "Person" is more specific, like zooming in:  Jerome, Oak, Granite, Fido, Holy Trinity (F/S/HS)



* God is what we call the ultimate Being.  The one and only uncaused cause.  That one being is described in the Bible as existing in three Persons.


‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 2:52PM #630
Qwesam
Posts: 2,700

Jun 29, 2012 -- 1:39PM, Ed.W wrote:


One Being (which is God*) in three Persons.


A "Being" is the essence of something.  Human, tree, rock, dog, God.


A "Person" is more specific, like zooming in:  Jerome, Oak, Granite, Fido, Holy Trinity (F/S/HS)



* God is what we call the ultimate Being.  The one and only uncaused cause.  That one being is described in the Bible as existing in three Persons.





Ok, tell/show me how you (yes, that is you), Ed-->being as existing in three persons?




 

***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.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 63 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook