Does Christianity Violate Logic?

[Same Hakeem]

Please explain how the father, the son and the holy spirit be co-equal when Jesus said in Matthew 24:36 it is "ONLY the father" who knows the hour

[Sparko]

Please explain how the father, the son and the holy spirit be co-equal when Jesus said in Matthew 24:36 it is "ONLY the father" who knows the hour

This has been explained to you several times now. Why should I repeat what has already been answered? You will just ignore it and ask again.

There is a relevant passage in the bible regarding people like you:

Matthew 7:6
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.

[One Bad Pig]

This has been explained to you several times now. Why should I repeat what has already been answered? You will just ignore it and ask again.

There is a relevant passage in the bible regarding people like you:

Matthew 7:6
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.

IF Hakeem is an actual Muslim, you just insulted the heck out of him.

[Sparko]

IF Hakeem is an actual Muslim, you just insulted the heck out of him.

[Same Hakeem]

The answer is here

Sparko, apply it to my objection and show how it is reconciled.

[Same Hakeem]

This has been explained to you several times now. Why should I repeat what has already been answered? You will just ignore it and ask again.

There is a relevant passage in the bible regarding people like you:

Matthew 7:6
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.

As I said over and over, anyone can say anything on anything but not necessarily logical when it comes to the doctrine of trinity.

Let me help you with another verse that proves that the trinity not only contradicts logic but also scripture. In Revelation 3:21 Jesus said "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne" ;therefore, "God" Jesus sitting with God Father on his throne requires more than one God whereas 1 Corinthians 8:4 "there is no other God but One"

[Juvenal]

Never said Christianity can be proven. For someone who wants to have others not speak for him, you sure have been quick to speak for me here. Christianity is a historical faith and the historicity part relies on probability.

Which is again another assertion given without any supporting argument.

No. You just said to construct an axiom that shows only my divine being existed. I just said I don't think that's doable.

My objections to others speaking for me are reserved for those failing miserably in the attempt: "Reality is more flexible" said no mathematician, ever. This suggests limited interaction with the field.

And now the argument from backpedal:

Philosophy alone cannot prove Christianity.

v.

Never said Christianity can be proven.

And ...

Not doing that.

v.

I just said I don't think that's doable."

Sure you did.

_____

The real issue with "proving" Christianity is its lack of definition. Demographers have no choice but to throw up their hands, allowing anyone who calls themselves a Christian to be counted as Christian. Mainline denominations are generally comfortable with believers who accept the resurrection itself was metaphorical. Deb died thinking I was a Christian because she was OSAS.

We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord
We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord
And we pray that our unity will one day be restored
And they'll know we are Christians by our love ...

If only it were that simple; if only thoughts and prayers worked.

In the absence of simpler solutions, driven perhaps by some combination of need to preserve the "specialness" of their hoped-for eternal rewards and lingering affection for their principal tradents — above and beyond appreciation of the traditions themselves — multiple denominations in each of the Abrahamic faiths developed creeds.

The perceived benefit is an objective measure of what it means to be Apostle's Creed Christian or Five Pillars Muslim, balanced against the incidental removal of Methodists and Shi'a from the realm of true believers. Of course, there will be those who see this bug as a feature. And with them, those who take glory from the bite. All of the principle holy sites of Shi'a Islam are scenes where a Sunni army slaughtered a son of Allah's favorite son, Ali.

Pick the right creed, and you can justify blowing up the mosques they erected there.

_____

Creedal faiths are eminently "doable."

Creeds suffer often enough from inherent self-contradictions, but those can be trimmed out. The actual problem is that even a well-defined and consistent creed, allowing one exists, can't escape a dependence on arbitrary assumptions. There's no a priori in logic. There are no laws.

There are only theories composed of theorems based on axioms selected arbitrarily.

Selah.

Reality is not more flexible, and thanks for letting me do my own saying, k?

Sure sounds exactly like what you're saying.

Evidence suggests you're a less than reliable source on exactly what you've said yourself.

I would be glad to consider some reading on the topic in that case.

Graham Priest's Introduction to Non-Classical Logic catches all the tick marks without savaging the budget, but be careful. Some of the lowest offers link to what look like shady websites. There's a better text by Burris and Sankappanavar in the public domain, but it's not introductory.

The idea of a greatest infinite seems like an odd one. If something is without limitations, how can one be the greatest? There can be only one. There are also plenty of mathematicians who are devout Christians and have no problem with God being without limitations.

It's true that there can be no greatest infinite.

It is not true there can be only one.

Back to the OP.

Due credit to Gödel, but it was "railroading time." Georj Cantor published his proof that the real numbers are not countably infinite in 1874 ...

You're not reading the posts.

The Liconas and the Habermases get together on Labor Day weekend regularly. Sometimes the Craigs join in. If I see Craig this year, I can ask him.

If it's not too much trouble.

And there are plenty of modern Thomist philosophers today who have built on Aquinas, but there's still something special about the foundations themselves.

Without the founders, there would be no reflections on what they got wrong.

I can live with that.

Never said anything about being uncomfortable. I just said the idea doesn't make sense. My comfort level doesn't matter.

I never said it made you uncomfortable. I offered it as a more defensible reason for rejection.

Again, that's not what you said.

... and if we say everything is limited, I have to ask by what. That strikes me as a system with everything being dependent on everything and not having a grounding.

Lots of things don't make sense until you've studied them.

Regards, J

[Same Hakeem]

Any violation of logic in Christianity is the doctrine of atonement where the sinless (i.e. Jesus) dies/died for the guilty. This logic violates also what God commanded in 2 Kings 14:6 "everyone is to die for his own sin"

[JimL]

Any violation of logic in Christianity is the doctrine of atonement where the sinless (i.e. Jesus) dies/died for the guilty. This logic violates also what God commanded in 2 Kings 14:6 "everyone is to die for his own sin"

A god, by definition, can't die anyway, so the whole story of Jesus death and resurrection is ridiculous to begin with.

[Sparko]

Sparko, apply it to my objection and show how it is reconciled.

Simply repeating the same argument after it has been answered already doesn't actually mean you won the argument, Hakeem. It just means you are a lousy debater. And a troll.

debating.jpg

[Apologiaphoenix]

My objections to others speaking for me are reserved for those failing miserably in the attempt: "Reality is more flexible" said no mathematician, ever. This suggests limited interaction with the field.

Wasn't talking about mathematicians. I was talking about logicians.

And now the argument from backpedal:

Philosophy alone cannot prove Christianity.

v.

Never said Christianity can be proven.

And ...

Not doing that.

v.

I just said I don't think that's doable."

Sure you did.

Nonsense. I know what I say and I watch my words carefully on this. Could one demonstrate theism? Yes. Could one demonstrate Christianity? No. History as a science works on probabilities and not on certainties. Do I think it's the best explanation of the data concerning the historical Jesus? Yes. Is there an ironclad proof? No.

_____

The real issue with "proving" Christianity is its lack of definition.

Which I'm not doing.

Demographers have no choice but to throw up their hands, allowing anyone who calls themselves a Christian to be counted as Christian. Mainline denominations are generally comfortable with believers who accept the resurrection itself was metaphorical. Deb died thinking I was a Christian because she was OSAS.

It would be nice to see some data on this, but really it's irrelevant. I think we all know what you're wanting to argue against here. I can't make up just anything and call it Christian. Being a Christian means something specific.

If only it were that simple; if only thoughts and prayers worked.

Meh. I have enough stories of astounding things happening with prayer, but I don't think that's scientifically testable either since God if He exists would be a free-will agent and a free-will agent is not like a machine. Persons don't always respond the same way and have no obligation to. That treats them like machines.

In the absence of simpler solutions, driven perhaps by some combination of need to preserve the "specialness" of their hoped-for eternal rewards and lingering affection for their principal tradents — above and beyond appreciation of the traditions themselves — multiple denominations in each of the Abrahamic faiths developed creeds.

The perceived benefit is an objective measure of what it means to be Apostle's Creed Christian or Five Pillars Muslim, balanced against the incidental removal of Methodists and Shi'a from the realm of true believers. Of course, there will be those who see this bug as a feature. And with them, those who take glory from the bite. All of the principle holy sites of Shi'a Islam are scenes where a Sunni army slaughtered a son of Allah's favorite son, Ali.

Pick the right creed, and you can justify blowing up the mosques they erected there.

Don't see what any of this has to do with the price of tea in China.

_____

Creedal faiths are eminently "doable."

No idea what this even means.

Creeds suffer often enough from inherent self-contradictions, but those can be trimmed out. The actual problem is that even a well-defined and consistent creed, allowing one exists, can't escape a dependence on arbitrary assumptions. There's no a priori in logic. There are no laws.

First off, there have not been shown contradictions. Are their paradoxes? Yes. I would hesitate to say when thinkers of any position get together and make a statement, they put a self-contradiction in there without really good evidence. Also, creeds are not arbitrary. They go by the data that the religion has in its system.

There are only theories composed of theorems based on axioms selected arbitrarily.

This makes it look like logical theorems and religions are just big games of Calvinball that make things up as they go along with no basis in reality. Color me skeptical of that. If you think so, feel free to show a logical system that is purely arbitrary in its development.

Evidence suggests you're a less than reliable source on exactly what you've said yourself.

This is not a clarification. This is just an ad hominem.

It's true that there can be no greatest infinite.

It is not true there can be only one.

This is interesting because I was sure that you had said earlier that there can be no infinites.

Now there cannot be only one.

I also wish to know if you are speaking of infinity in the abstract or the concrete.

You're not reading the posts.

As of now, I have no position on numbers, on if they're real or not. Could they be eternal ideas in the mind of God? That's what I would lean to.

Without the founders, there would be no reflections on what they got wrong.

I can live with that.

Your choice. Not mine. I still prefer the rule of Lewis. Read Plato. Not books about Plato.

I never said it made you uncomfortable. I offered it as a more defensible reason for rejection.

You brought up being uncomfortable. Not I.

Again, that's not what you said.

... and if we say everything is limited, I have to ask by what. That strikes me as a system with everything being dependent on everything and not having a grounding.

Lots of things don't make sense until you've studied them.

Regards, J

And lots of things don't make sense even after being studied.

[Same Hakeem]

Simply repeating the same argument after it has been answered already doesn't actually mean you won the argument, Hakeem. It just means you are a lousy debater. And a troll.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38857[/ATTACH]

You see the difference between me and you is that I use the Bible as proof. For example, in 2 Kings 14:6 God commanded that "everyone is to die for himself"; however, God commanded to kill infants as per 1 Samuel 15.9 and "the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt" in Ex 12:29.

[Sparko]

You see the difference between me and you is that I use the Bible as proof. For example, in 2 Kings 14:6 God commanded that "everyone is to die for himself"; however, God commanded to kill infants as per 1 Samuel 15.9 and "the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt" in Ex 12:29.

No, you use the bible as a salad bar, picking and choosing bits here and there and then assembling them into something they don't actually say because you ignore anything that disagrees with you and you ignore context.

[Same Hakeem]

No, you use the bible as a salad bar, picking and choosing bits here and there and then assembling them into something they don't actually say because you ignore anything that disagrees with you and you ignore context.

God ORDERS TO KILL INFANTS in 1 Samuel 15:9, is this justice from God who commanded that every one is to die for himself n 2 Kings 14:6?

[Sparko]

God ORDERS TO KILL INFANTS in 1 Samuel 15:9, is this justice from God who commanded that every one is to die for himself n 2 Kings 14:6?

Your objection doesn't even make sense. You are talking about two entirely different things.