Jun 29, 2012 -- 2:52PM, Qwesam wrote:

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?

 

I'm not God.  I don't know why you think God should share your limitations.

Jun 29, 2012 -- 3:13PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 29, 2012 -- 3:03PM, Ed.W wrote:

I'm not God.  I don't know why you think God should share your limitations.

Then, it is nothing more than your belief.

I don't argue with faith/belief.

We are talking about Math/Logic.

 

It is my belief that "I don't know"? 

You seem to believe that God can only share the attributes of his creation.  I simply without asserting he must be triune say he can be triune.  You say he can't be triune.  (And feel free to tell us "why" he can't be triune anytime you can get your thoughts gelled on it.)

What you guys believe is ridiculous.  That the watchmaker looks like ... uh....wait for it...  a giant watch.  Too much Star Trek I guess...

I don't believe the number three is anything more than the number between 2 and 4.  Thus, I don't see why God HAS to be triune at all.  It's not a magic number.

Jun 29, 2012 -- 2:57PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 29, 2012 -- 6:45AM, Daldianus wrote:

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 :)

Well, he used lousy Math (Plural Magic Logic) to prove it.

It takes only two steps...

I meant if you have to solve a complex Function like f=(x,y,z), it would take a bunch of time to do it. 

Plural logic has become a standard philosophical modeling tool, and nobody in the history of math or logic has ever "solved a function". They're simply not things you "solve" since they're mappings. But thanks for voluntarily and repeatedly exposing how clueless you actually are. Makes it easy for me :)

James

Jun 30, 2012 -- 8:02PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 30, 2012 -- 1:15PM, Jiwe wrote:

 

Plural logic has become a standard philosophical modeling tool, and nobody in the history of math or logic has ever "solved a function". They're simply not things you "solve" since they're mappings. But thanks for voluntarily and repeatedly exposing how clueless you actually are. Makes it easy for me :)

James

 

I knew that! That is why I challenge you to solve it. You just CAN’T!!!

We are nothing about Math, remember?

 

What you are providing is nothing more than philosophy to prove a belief.

 You used plural MAGIC, pop....pop.....pop   there you go....

Way to go James………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

So your strategy is: set up a meaningless problem and when I can't "solve" it, I'm incompetent and it proves that plural logic is unsound...? You're really quite special, aren't you...