Does Christianity Violate Logic?

[KingsGambit]

And we can't know your credentials. It's the internet. Anyone can lie about credentials.

He legitimately does have a PhD. I will personally attest to that much.

[Cow Poke]

He legitimately does have a PhD. I will personally attest to that much.

But you're some guy on the internetzweb - who validates YOU!

[One Bad Pig]

And we can't know your credentials. It's the internet. Anyone can lie about credentials.

I'd advise you to let Nick handle this, cbw. This one's not a chew toy.

[Christianbookworm]

I'd advise you to let Nick handle this, cbw. This one's not a chew toy.

I'll be nice. Can I still pray for him?

[One Bad Pig]

I'll be nice. Can I still pray for him?

Absolutely.

[rossum]

Do you violate logic with Christianity?

Yes.

1. God is omniscient, knowing everything.

2. Jesus does not know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36).

3. Jesus is God.

You can have any two of the three without a logical contradiction. All three together give you a logical contradiction: God both knows everything and does not know everything.

[Juvenal]

I said nothing about a privileged position.

Why do I keep getting the feeling only one of us is reading this thread.

I do consider those three laws as they are all aspects of how being behaves.

That was in response to the correction that all of them are essentially arbitrary given with specific theoretical and practical counter-examples supported by links to the original literature and popular treatments from Stanford's philosophy department.

I'm losing faith in you here, Nick.

You're not holding up your end.

I simply said there are no laws of logic that Christianity violates. It doesn't violate the Law of Identity, Excluded Middle, or Non-Contradiction.

Now there's an awesome game if you want to play:

Construct an axiom system that excludes the existence of any divine being other than mine.

Dayum.

On the mountaintop, looking out at fame, fortune, and that night out with J Lo for the bucket list. Oh stop already, I'm thinking about me now, not you. Prizes go to players only. This could totally work. Aim at the most prosperous faith. Tell them you can prove the existence of their god.

Tell them your axioms are laws.

Right now I would say most any Thomist philosopher. Garrigou-Lagrange, Feser, Stump, Gilson, Wippel, etc.

Let's restrict the list to people who know logics, k, and people who wouldn't laugh at your idea that arbitrary axioms are actually laws, kk?

If you're talking about an infinite in math, then that is one of quantity.

"If."

It's considerably more than just quantity, Nick.

That's one reason also Aquinas would reject a Kalam argument as given by Craig, at least with regard to the philosophy, since there are some versions of infinite regresses he thought were possible.

Good for 'Quinas! Score one for a tiny glimmer of insight into a process that would one day be foundational to mathematics.

Now we know you haven't gotten around to looking at calculus yet.

That's why those fuzzy logic industry rounds ran over.

Ready the ranging fire.

If the 21st century is too big a stretch, we can back up to between the 18th and 19th century, if you like. The industrial revolution. It ran on steam power. Steam power needed calculus. Calculus needs infinite regression. And it needed it when it was developed, back in the 17th century.

Tell me when I get to a century you're comfortable in.

But we have to compromise. The 13th century won't cut it for me.

And neither will Craig. I've actually heard him say we can't subtract infinite cardinals. And that's just one example. Literally every time he says anything about the transfinites, it's cringeworthy. Craig excludes the infinite from reality because there can be no greatest infinite. With no winning endgame in sight, he kicks the table. The guy's not honest.

He has great teeth, though.

The infinite like that is not what is had in mind when talking about God.

That would depend on what "is" is.

It's about a quality He has without limitation.

There's a word for "without limitation."

Regards, J

[Juvenal]

But you're some guy on the internetzweb - who validates YOU!

The preacher posts on my ratemyprofessor page. The kids absolutely adore him.

They want to take him dancing.

[Juvenal]

I dream of finishing that book one day. I've tried a couple times. I just need enough free time to plow all the way through it without having to put it aside for too long.

It came out in 79. I read it in the early 80s.

When was you born again, piglet?

In the late 80s, I was at a national conference where this immensely amusing fat guy wearing a raggy t-shirt, baggy shorts and flip flops, all under a small and graying ponytail, gave a featured lecture on Escher's woodblock tessellations. He was automorphism-ing at us, hopping all around the stage mimicking transformations that can turn a swan into farmland.

It was glorious.

Escher.jpg

My name's on a paper with the amusing fat guy. His name is on quite a few papers with Erdös.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Yes.

1. God is omniscient, knowing everything.

2. Jesus does not know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36).

3. Jesus is God.

You can have any two of the three without a logical contradiction. All three together give you a logical contradiction: God both knows everything and does not know everything.

Jesus in His humanity doesn't know everything. Jesus in His deity does. Jesus took upon Himself limitations in the incarnation.

[rossum]

Jesus in His humanity doesn't know everything. Jesus in His deity does. Jesus took upon Himself limitations in the incarnation.

Then there are two separate Jesuses: human-Jesus who does not know everything and divine-Jesus who does know everything. We can tell they are separate and different because one is omniscient and the other is not. Combining them into one entity results in a logical contradiction.

So, rewriting my points:

1. God is omniscient, knowing everything.

2. human-Jesus does not know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36).

3. divine-Jesus is God.

4. human-Jesus and divine Jesus are not the same.

That resolves the contradiction at the cost of duplicating two differing versions of Jesus which cannot be the same: human-Jesus is not God, while divine-Jesus is.

[One Bad Pig]

It came out in 79. I read it in the early 80s.

When was you born again, piglet?

I was born again in 1980, IIRC. Thanks for asking.

I saw a copy of the book on my uncle's coffee table a couple years ago, which surprised me a bit since he didn't seem the type. Turns out neither he nor my aunt have cracked it open - someone gave it to them. I've gotten about half-way, twice.

In the late 80s, I was at a national conference where this immensely amusing fat guy wearing a raggy t-shirt, baggy shorts and flip flops, all under a small and graying ponytail, gave a featured lecture on Escher's woodblock tessellations. He was automorphism-ing at us, hopping all around the stage mimicking transformations that can turn a swan into farmland.

It was glorious.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38592[/ATTACH]

My name's on a paper with the amusing fat guy. His name is on quite a few papers with Erdös.

I'm sure those names mean something to someone.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Why do I keep getting the feeling only one of us is reading this thread.

I do consider those three laws as they are all aspects of how being behaves.

That was in response to the correction that all of them are essentially arbitrary given with specific theoretical and practical counter-examples supported by links to the original literature and popular treatments from Stanford's philosophy department.

I'm losing faith in you here, Nick.

You're not holding up your end.

Getting to that.

Now there's an awesome game if you want to play:

Construct an axiom system that excludes the existence of any divine being other than mine.

Not doing that. I think classical theology with the arguments for it could get you to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, perhaps Deism, or maybe some other system where God just hasn't revealed Himself yet. Philosophy alone cannot prove Christianity.

On the mountaintop, looking out at fame, fortune, and that night out with J Lo for the bucket list. Oh stop already, I'm thinking about me now, not you. Prizes go to players only. This could totally work. Aim at the most prosperous faith. Tell them you can prove the existence of their god.

Tell them your axioms are laws.

The problem I see with the examples given such as the Liar's Paradox and such are that there really is no subject matter. What is being lied about? Furthermore, if you want to say that there is more flexibility in reality and contradictions can be true or something of that sort, then if Christianity can work in a tight system, it can work in a more loose system so I don't see how that helps the case.

Let's restrict the list to people who know logics, k, and people who wouldn't laugh at your idea that arbitrary axioms are actually laws, kk?

Which sounds like just saying "Let's restrict the list to people who agree with me."

"If."

It's considerably more than just quantity, Nick.

The idea though is that God is not on a list such that you keep adding things up together and lo and behold, you get God. That's what I see going on when math is used in this regard.

Good for 'Quinas! Score one for a tiny glimmer of insight into a process that would one day be foundational to mathematics.

Now we know you haven't gotten around to looking at calculus yet.

Nor did I claim I have.

That's why those fuzzy logic industry rounds ran over.

Ready the ranging fire.

If the 21st century is too big a stretch, we can back up to between the 18th and 19th century, if you like. The industrial revolution. It ran on steam power. Steam power needed calculus. Calculus needs infinite regression. And it needed it when it was developed, back in the 17th century.

Tell me when I get to a century you're comfortable in.

But we have to compromise. The 13th century won't cut it for me.

And neither will Craig. I've actually heard him say we can't subtract infinite cardinals. And that's just one example. Literally every time he says anything about the transfinites, it's cringeworthy. Craig excludes the infinite from reality because there can be no greatest infinite. With no winning endgame in sight, he kicks the table. The guy's not honest.

He has great teeth, though.

I never used Craig in the sense you think I did. If anything, I was going against his position, and I say that as someone who considers Craig a friend. I like him, but I frankly don't use his material that much. The century ultimately also doesn't matter to me.

That would depend on what "is" is.



There's a word for "without limitation."

Regards, J

Yes, 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.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Then there are two separate Jesuses: human-Jesus who does not know everything and divine-Jesus who does know everything. We can tell they are separate and different because one is omniscient and the other is not. Combining them into one entity results in a logical contradiction.

So, rewriting my points:

1. God is omniscient, knowing everything.

2. human-Jesus does not know the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36).

3. divine-Jesus is God.

4. human-Jesus and divine Jesus are not the same.

That resolves the contradiction at the cost of duplicating two differing versions of Jesus which cannot be the same: human-Jesus is not God, while divine-Jesus is.

You're assuming a person and a nature are identical. They are not. This is the Nestorian idea. Jesus in His humanity did not know. Jesus in His divinity did know and took on the limitations of humanity.

[rossum]

You're assuming a person and a nature are identical. They are not. This is the Nestorian idea. Jesus in His humanity did not know. Jesus in His divinity did know and took on the limitations of humanity.

Jesus cannot both know and not know. That would give Jesus both A and ~A, an obvious logical contradiction.

Therefore, Jesus is a compound entity, like a chessboard. That can be both black and not-black because it is a compound of black and not-black squares.

Similarly, your Jesus is a compound of human-Jesus and divine-Jesus. The two are different because one knows and the other does not. Because they are different we should analyse them separately as two distinct entities.

My argument is not due to Nestorius but to Nagarjuna, the Buddhist philosopher.

As to person and nature, I accept the existence of persons, I do not accept the existence of nature/essence/soul as a concept. It is a projection by our minds onto external reality; a reification. Buddhism does not accept the existence of a soul.