Answers to Atheistic arguments

[johnmartin]

And I was right - you've not only produced more idiotic blather that demonstrates your cluelessness, you've also tried to shift the burden of proof and evade taking any responsibility for your errors.

No its time I show everyone you are in error as usual.

As for my objection, it's extremely easy to prove:

The only thing you prove is your desperation to avoid theism.

1. If an entity is a physical substance, then it has an accident of colour

This tells us about physical substances. It gives no information about entities that are not physical substances. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about entities that are not physical substances based on this premise alone.

But I did derive it as has been shown previously. Did you not understand the proof?

Specfiically, one cannot derive this:

2. If an entity is not a physical substance, then it does not have an accident of colour.

from the above. The essential form of such a derivation would be

(P(E) -> C(E)) -> (~P(E)->~C(E))

where P(x) means x 'is a physical substance' and C(x) means x 'has an accident of colour'. That

(P(E) -> C(E)) -> (~P(E)->~C(E))

is not a valid logical construct can be demonstrated by producing counter examples; one such counterexample is having P(x) be 'is a zebra' and C(x) being 'is striped'. This form would produce an invalid conclusion - that tigers, which are not zebras, aren't striped - thus demonstrating that the construct being used is invalid.

No this only demonstrates that you have used a slight of hand by moving from a statement in the universal to another statement in the singular as your counter argument. To be consistent you must have your counter argument also in the universal. This is elementary Roy and it’s a fundamental error that even your symbols cannot hide.

Another counterexample would be having P(x) be 'is marble', and C(x) be 'has potency'. This also leads to an invalid conclusion, that Plasticine, which is not marble, does not have potency. Therefore, although the second statement may be correct, it cannot be derived from the first one without additional premises (such as 'An accident of colour requires a physical substance').

You confuse contradictory with contrary opposition and also move from the first to the third degree without knowing it.

In other words,

The second statement is not a logical conclusion from the first.

It is and your counter examples are bogus as per usual.

I don't expect you to understand this, or to produce any sensible response.

I do and I have.

Frankly, your cluelessness and evasiveness has reached the level that I wouldn't expect you to understand or respond sensibly if I told you the time.

Look in the mirror Roy and see one inept logician.

But here's your chance. Address the point that the inverse of a true statement may not be a true statement, as you promised above that you would, or be considered worse than a blithering idiot.

In future I'll resist wrestling with the pig and confine my replies to pointing out that there is a pig present.*
Roy
*I don't expect you to understand this. Don't let it bother you.

You say

Address the point that the inverse of a true statement may not be a true statement, as you promised above that you would, or be considered worse than a blithering idiot.

The inverse of a true statement may not be true, but if it is proven to be true, as the case in the third degree of formal abstraction as shown previously then it is true. I've never denied the inverse of a statement may be false. However, I have shown the inverse of a particular statement is definitely true and thats all I needed to do.
Your language is desperate and your atheism is yet again shown to be irrational. God is.
JM

[Roy]

1. If an entity is a physical substance, then it has an accident of colour

This tells us about physical substances. It gives no information about entities that are not physical substances. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about entities that are not physical substances based on this premise alone.

But I did derive it as has been shown previously. Did you not understand the proof?

The blithering idiot forgets that his proof used other premises as well - including one similar to the sample I provided. Or maybe he just doesn't grasp what a premise is.

No this only demonstrates that you have used a slight of hand...

That's sleight-of-hand. Not 'slight'. Note the additional vowel. This may be a typo, but is more probably a conflation of the two words, hence the correction.

... by moving from a statement in the universal to another statement in the singular as your counter argument. To be consistent you must have your counter argument also in the universal. This is elementary Roy and it’s a fundamental error that even your symbols cannot hide.

Utter twaddle as usual. It isn't necessary to have a particular type of counter-example to show that a form of deduction is invalid; any counter-example that follows the same form but produces a false conclusion is sufficient.

I don't expect you to understand this, or to produce any sensible response.

I do and I have.

You don't and you haven't.

Look in the mirror Roy and see one inept logician.

It's 14:51

I've never denied the inverse of a statement may be false.

Ah, the gibberer tries to save face by pretending the earlier part of this meander (I hesitate to call it a conversation) ever happened.

But we need merely repeat his original comments [emphasis mine]:

Point 3 can be rebutted simply by noting that the inverse of a true implication may not be true.

(X->Y) -/-> (~X->~Y)

Example:
If an entity is a raven, it is black.
If an entity is not a raven, it is not black.

Wrong Roy. Very wrong. You divert the attention away from what I wrote to an unrelated example of your own making yet again. Its your turn to re-examine your logic. You have consistently made this error now several times and it shows your objections are based on ignorance regarding the three degrees of formal abstraction. Your syllogism is in the first degree and mine is in the third. Your syllogism uses singulars and mine universals. Your syllogism uses substances and accidents and mine natures abstracted without reference to matter. I can translate your syllogism into the third degree as follows

If an entity is a physical substance, then it has an accident of colour

If an entity is not a physical substance, then it does not have an accident of colour.

This answers your objection.

That is not only a denial that the inverse of a true statement may not be true, but effectively a claim that under certain vague circumstances (universals, third degree, abstract natures) the inverse of a true statement is always true.

And this is, of course, exactly what Mr. Clueless used in the 'proof' that I was originally objecting to:

8. "X->Z" means
9. 'Actually limited existence’ requires ‘limited by the contrary of the act’
[I'll assume you mean 'X->Y']
10. Also "~Y->~X." means
11. ‘Not limited by the contrary of the act’ requires not 'actually limited existence’
12. Which is not a non sequitur.
13. Also the inverse ~X -> ~Y means
14. Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’
15. Which is not a non sequitur.

The following statements are then all true

1. actually limited existence requires limited by the contrary of the act
2. not limited by the contrary of the act requires not actually limited existence
3. not actually limited existence requires not limited by the contrary of the act

Doofus has explicitly stated that statement 3 is true because it is the inverse of a true statement, and for no other reason. He may not have explicitly denied that the inverse of a true statement may be false, but he has on this occasion assumed that the inverse of a true statement is true. This claim that the inverse of a true statement is automatically true is a denial that the inverse of a true statement may not be true; and a demonstration of why when JM asserts that he said or didn't say something in the past, he should not be believed.

(I should note that the reason for not believing him isn't because of any dishonesty on his part, but merely because he so thoroughly doesn't know what he's talking about that he is completely incapable of remembering what he has or has not said; even to the extent of not recognising his own drivel well enough to avoid replying to himself)

However, I have shown the inverse of a particular statement is definitely true and thats all I needed to do.

An admission of error was also needed, and has not been forthcoming.

Enjoy your wallow.

Roy

P.S. As further evidence that JM is clueless about philosophy, logic, fallacies, deduction, mathematics, physics, evolution, thermodynamics, astronomy, orbital parameters, satellites, bats, apes, common descent, abiogenesis, English, apostrophes, theology, ID, chemistry, probability, geometry, units, biology, algebra, science, history, Galileo, reification, entropy, ectropy, iiwis, ibices, alliteration, poetry, music, Baroness Orczy, fossils, radiodating, symbolic logic, and many many other topics I include the following exchange:

Remember all those ignorant creationists who insist that evolution means iiwis begetting ibices? To JM, that would be an insubstantial change.

**These changes aren’t great at all and they’re certainly not substantial.

There you have it. John Martin thinks that a small red bird giving birth to a large white goat would be an insubstantial change.

[johnmartin]

Originally posted by johnmartin
1. If an entity is a physical substance, then it has an accident of colour
This tells us about physical substances. It gives no information about entities that are not physical substances. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about entities that are not physical substances based on this premise alone.
But I did derive it as has been shown previously. Did you not understand the proof?
The blithering idiot forgets that his proof used other premises as well - including one similar to the sample I provided. Or maybe he just doesn't grasp what a premise is.

I did present a proof. Did you not understand it? If you did then show me where there is an error in the proof.

... by moving from a statement in the universal to another statement in the singular as your counter argument. To be consistent you must have your counter argument also in the universal. This is elementary Roy and it’s a fundamental error that even your symbols cannot hide.

Utter twaddle as usual. It isn't necessary to have a particular type of counter-example to show that a form of deduction is invalid; any counter-example that follows the same form but produces a false conclusion is sufficient.

No. You miss the application of the manner in which the syllogism is presented in the universal and then use an example inconsistent with the manner in which the original statement was made. This is elementary. You also still don’t get the degrees of abstraction which I critical to the discussion.

I've never denied the inverse of a statement may be false.

Ah, the gibberer tries to save face by pretending the earlier part of this meander (I hesitate to call it a conversation) ever happened.

But we need merely repeat his original comments [emphasis mine]:

We shall see that you still don’t get the degrees of abstraction.

Point 3 can be rebutted simply by noting that the inverse of a true implication may not be true.

(X->Y) -/-> (~X->~Y)

Example:
If an entity is a raven, it is black.
If an entity is not a raven, it is not black.
Wrong Roy. Very wrong. You divert the attention away from what I wrote to an unrelated example of your own making yet again. Its your turn to re-examine your logic. You have consistently made this error now several times and it shows your objections are based on ignorance regarding the three degrees of formal abstraction. Your syllogism is in the first degree and mine is in the third. Your syllogism uses singulars and mine universals. Your syllogism uses substances and accidents and mine natures abstracted without reference to matter. I can translate your syllogism into the third degree as follows

If an entity is a physical substance, then it has an accident of colour

If an entity is not a physical substance, then it does not have an accident of colour.

This answers your objection.
That is not only a denial that the inverse of a true statement may not be true,

Check my statement again. I don’t deny anything concerning the inverse of a statement.

but effectively a claim that under certain vague circumstances (universals, third degree, abstract natures)

I’ve given a clear example of the degrees of abstraction since this statement. There is nothing vague about these degrees. The proofs are in the universal and if you do not understand this (which it seems you don’t) then your objection is based on this. If you do then you have knowingly made an elementary error and not only once, but now several times. Either way your objections only show you are inept at philosophy and logic and you consistently refuse to be corrected.

the inverse of a true statement is always true.

It isn’t and I didn’t say it was. This is your error thinking I did.

And this is, of course, exactly what Mr. Clueless used in the 'proof' that I was originally objecting to:

I don’t and you have not yet established that I have stated where I deny that “the inverse of a true statement is always true.” I have shown however that the inverse of a particular statement made in the universal and in the third degree of formal abstraction is always true. Then I went on and proved it to be always true. Again you have consistently ignored this and shows that you only have your stubborn pride to fall back on when I politely correct you. You don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. Logic alone just does not cut it.

8. "X->Z" means

9. 'Actually limited existence’ requires ‘limited by the contrary of the act’
[I'll assume you mean 'X->Y']
10. Also "~Y->~X." means
11. ‘Not limited by the contrary of the act’ requires not 'actually limited existence’
12. Which is not a non sequitur.
13. Also the inverse ~X -> ~Y means
14. Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’
15. Which is not a non sequitur.

The following statements are then all true

1. actually limited existence requires limited by the contrary of the act
2. not limited by the contrary of the act requires not actually limited existence
3. not actually limited existence requires not limited by the contrary of the act
Doofus has explicitly stated that statement 3 is true because it is the inverse of a true statement, and for no other reason.

I have also provided a proof later on, which you have ignored. You also ignore the universal and degree as has now been repeatedly shown to you.

He may not have explicitly denied that the inverse of a true statement may be false, but he has on this occasion assumed that the inverse of a true statement is true.

I have done more than this, I’ve proven this statement in line 3 above to be always true.

This claim that the inverse of a true statement is automatically true is a denial that the inverse of a true statement may not be true; and a demonstration of why when JM asserts that he said or didn't say something in the past, he should not be believed.

The proof was presented and you continue to ignore it. Statement in line 3 is always true.

(I should note that the reason for not believing him isn't because of any dishonesty on his part, but merely because he so thoroughly doesn't know what he's talking about that he is completely incapable of remembering what he has or has not said; even to the extent of not recognising his own drivel well enough to avoid replying to himself)

Merely an editing problem as has already been stated by me.

However, I have shown the inverse of a particular statement is definitely true and thats all I needed to do.

An admission of error was also needed, and has not been forthcoming.

Enjoy your wallow.

Roy

No admission required. You have been answered plenty. Atheism is for those who will it in spite of reason saying otherwise.

P.S. As further evidence that JM is clueless about philosophy, logic, fallacies, deduction, mathematics, physics, evolution, thermodynamics, astronomy, orbital parameters, satellites, bats, apes, common descent, abiogenesis, English, apostrophes, theology, ID, chemistry, probability, geometry, units, biology, algebra, science, history, Galileo, reification, entropy, ectropy, iiwis, ibices, alliteration, poetry, music, Baroness Orczy, fossils, radiodating, symbolic logic, and many many other topics I include the following exchange:

You refused to show evidence of errors in a similar statement you made about me some months ago. You were challenged to evidence your statement, which you did not do and when asked for an apology, you then made an incoherent attempt at forcing me to apologise for your incoherent rhetoric in the locker room. I see you have not changed your stripes.

Remember all those ignorant creationists who insist that evolution means iiwis begetting ibices? To JM, that would be an insubstantial change.

**These changes aren’t great at all and they’re certainly not substantial.
There you have it. John Martin thinks that a small red bird giving birth to a large white goat would be an insubstantial change.

You equivocate substance. Then again I’ve come to expect this from atheists and evolutionists who make a living out of fallacies. Unless you have some earth shattering new arguments against theism, I will not respond to you any longer as all your objections have already been answered several times now. God is, and He is the only being in the universe who can make man happy.
JM

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Deductive logic is a lot like mathematics and different from the natural language (like English). You can B.S. your way using a natural language, hiding your mistakes from the readers, but if your math is wrong then it stands out like black on white. Similarly, when your deductive logic is wong.

John Powell

[johnmartin]

POWELL:
Deductive logic is a lot like mathematics and different from the natural language (like English). You can B.S. your way using a natural language, hiding your mistakes from the readers, but if your math is wrong then it stands out like black on white. Similarly, when your deductive logic is wong.

John Powell

What are you talking about John?
JM

[Roy]

1. If an entity is a physical substance, then it has an accident of colour
This tells us about physical substances. It gives no information about entities that are not physical substances. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about entities that are not physical substances based on this premise alone.

But I did derive it as has been shown previously. Did you not understand the proof?

The blithering idiot forgets that his proof used other premises as well - including one similar to the sample I provided. Or maybe he just doesn't grasp what a premise is.

I did present a proof. Did you not understand it? If you did then show me where there is an error in the proof.

What a delightful example of what happens when some-one filters text through their own warped vision of what reality should be. Let's analyse it in detail.

First, we have this: "I did present a proof."

Why is this said? Not only is there no suggestion in the preceding text that no proof was presented, but there is even a reference to the content[1] of the proof. Why therefore, does JM feel the need to reiterate that a proof was presented? Is it because he is proud of his 'proof' and wants to announce it's existence at every opportunity? Is it because he didn't read what he was responding to? Or is it that he did read what he was responding to, yet was both unable to determine the meaning and too arrogant to admit that he couldn't do so, and hence had to construct a possible meaning? Such a constructed meaning would naturally be both simple enough for him to understand and corresponding to his preconceived view of reality, to whit: 'It says I didn't present a proof'. Oh, and wrong, but that almost goes without saying.

Long experience in disentangling JM's prose - including one memorable occasion where he replied to an undefined neologism[2] as though he fully understood its meaning - suggests that the latter is the actual reason for the presence of the unnecessary reiteration.

Second, we have this: "Did you not understand it?" A repeat of the previously asked question. This is symptomatic of a common feature of the unskilled yet unaware - they 'know' what they are talking about, and if some-one else disagrees, it can't be because of error on their part, so must be because of others' failure to understand. Hence the frequent repetition of comments such as 'you don't understand' or 'you just don't get it'. It never crosses the unskilled yet unaware mind that it might be themself that is fogged.

Finally we have this: "If you did then show me where there is an error in the proof.". Again, the subject falls back on the tried and tested response, not realising that in this case it is inappropriate. The shortcoming of the proof in this instance is not that it contains an error3, but that it relies on additional premises not directly inferrable from the sole premise originally given. This distinction - and the distinction between premises and inferences - is clearly beyond JM's logic horizon; all he knows is that he has presented a 'proof', and if someone objects to it, then they must be claiming it contains an error, and all he needs to do is declaim that there is no error and they haven't shown him that there is one, while at the same time being secure in the knowledge that not knowing any symbolic logic isn't a drawback because this stuff is so simple only an idiot could fail to understand it. Which is serendipitously correct.

All three of the above-analysed sentences are reminiscent of an automaton which, when encountering a situation outside its operation parameters, continues to follow its programing despite the result being something that would be obviously wrong to a more aware being. JM is here showing all the situational awareness of a moon-stretching orange-picker.

No. You miss the application of the manner in which the syllogism is presented in the universal and then use an example inconsistent with the manner in which the original statement was made. This is elementary. You also still don’t get the degrees of abstraction which I critical to the discussion.

JM continues to claim that the validity of a form of logical deduction is dependent on the subject being analysed - which is enough evidence to conclude that JM really is impervious to logic.

I don’t deny anything concerning the inverse of a statement.

No, you merely include, in of one of your 'proofs', a deduction based on the inverse of a true statement being also true. Something that despite you now seeming to be agree is invalid, you have never acknowledged nor corrected.

I’ve given a clear example of the degrees of abstraction since this statement. There is nothing vague about these degrees. The proofs are in the universal and if you do not understand this (which it seems you don’t) then your objection is based on this.

Another stunning example of JM_logic.

If you do then you have knowingly made an elementary error and not only once, but now several times.

And more. Apparently in JM_universe, not knowing something leads to knowingly making errors.

Either way your objections only show you are inept at philosophy and logic and you consistently refuse to be corrected.

Classic projection.

8. "X->Z" means
9. 'Actually limited existence’ requires ‘limited by the contrary of the act’
[I'll assume you mean 'X->Y']
10. Also "~Y->~X." means
11. ‘Not limited by the contrary of the act’ requires not 'actually limited existence’
12. Which is not a non sequitur.
13. Also the inverse ~X -> ~Y means
14. Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’
15. Which is not a non sequitur.

The following statements are then all true

1. actually limited existence requires limited by the contrary of the act
2. not limited by the contrary of the act requires not actually limited existence
3. not actually limited existence requires not limited by the contrary of the act

Doofus has explicitly stated that statement 3 is true because it is the inverse of a true statement, and for no other reason.

I have also provided a proof later on, which you have ignored. You also ignore the universal and degree as has now been repeatedly shown to you.

JM does not seem able to understand that it doesn't make any difference whether a proof was provided later, or even whether the claimed-to-be-true statement is actually true. The error in the above is simply in claiming that statement 3 is the inverse of a true statement and is then true.

This is an error. Until JM acknowledges that this is an error he stands condemned of being incompetent at logic, all his blatherings about proving it later and it being in the universal rather than the whatever are just static.

I don’t and you have not yet established that I have stated where I deny that “the inverse of a true statement is always true.”

When you used that 'principle' in the above frequently requoted extract.

I have shown however that the inverse of a particular statement made in the universal and in the third degree of formal abstraction is always true. Then I went on and proved it to be always true.

Note the ambiguity of the above sentence. Does it mean 'the inverse of (a particular statement made in the universal and in the third degree of formal abstraction) is always true', or does it mean '((the inverse of a particular statement) made in the universal and in the third degree of formal abstraction) is always true'? Such accidental ambiguity in a statement about logic is more evidence of cluelessness etc etc etc.

Again you have consistently ignored this and shows that you only have your stubborn pride to fall back on when I politely correct you.

Perhaps this refers to such 'polite' corrections as ' The only thing you prove is your desperation to avoid theism.' and 'Your language is desperate and your atheism is yet again shown to be irrational.'.

You don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. Logic alone just does not cut it.

If logic alone does not cut it, then not even having logic - JM's perennial state - clearly doesn't cut it either.

An admission of error was also needed, and has not been forthcoming.

No admission required.

An admission that the at-least-quadruplicately-quoted portion above does contain an error of logic not only is needed, but should have been provided when the error was first illuminated. Instead, JM continues to burrow Vernishly.[4]

You refused to show evidence of errors in a similar statement you made about me some months ago. You were challenged to evidence your statement, which you did not do...

A subtle (or at least a subtle as JM ever gets) rewrite of history. What JM actually said was that unless I produced proof of his widely-documented incompetence I was a liar.

...and when asked for an apology, you then made an incoherent attempt at forcing me to apologise for your incoherent rhetoric in the locker room.

More revisionism. It was perfectly coherent - everyone except JM understood it. Nor did JM ask for an apology before making his accusations.

Anyway, he demonstrates his cluelessness on those topics and others every time he posts. He's demonstrated his continued cluelessness regarding apostrophes, for example, by using its instead of it's three times on this page alone.

Unless you have some earth shattering new arguments against theism, I will not respond to you any longer as all your objections have already been answered several times now. God is, and He is the only being in the universe who can make man happy.

Ah, the old 'I can't deal with your objections so I'll whitter about God and run away' parting shot.

The alternative approaches of improving credibility by learning some logic or ceasing to flounder about in a desparate attempt to avoid admitting to basic errors must be for some reason unappealing.

Roy


[1] JM_note: The word 'content' in this context refers to what is within something, and not to an attitude of satisfaction. I know you have confused the two meanings in the past, hence this clarification.
[2] JM_note: A 'neologism' is a newly invented term. And to forestall your potential confusion here, I don't mean that 'neologism' is a newly invented term, I mean that 'neologism' is a word used to describe another word that has been newly invented. It comes from neo-, meaning new, and logos, meaning word. As in sequence of letters, not as in scripture. And by 'letters', I mean letters of the alphabet, not epistles. You're welcome.
[3] JM_note: This is not an assertion that the proof contains an error.
[4]JM_note: This is a literary allusion that you will not recognise, and consequently ignore or fumble. Do not worry about it.

[John Powell]

What are you talking about John?
JM

POWELL:
I'm comparing deductive logic with mathematics and contrasting them with the natural language (such as English) in terms of the ease of talking B.S.

John Powell

[johnmartin]

POWELL:
I'm comparing deductive logic with mathematics and contrasting them with the natural language (such as English) in terms of the ease of talking B.S.

John Powell

Were you referencing anything in my posts? If so show me what you were referring to, so I can dialogue. My posts contain truths from scholasticism and the proofs presented have not been shown to have any errors. So far this thread has not presented anything of substance against the proofs for God that has not been answered by me.
JM

[johnmartin]

Originally posted by johnmartin
No. You miss the application of the manner in which the syllogism is presented in the universal and then use an example inconsistent with the manner in which the original statement was made. This is elementary. You also still don’t get the degrees of abstraction which I critical to the discussion.
JM continues to claim that the validity of a form of logical deduction is dependent on the subject being analysed - which is enough evidence to conclude that JM really is impervious to logic.

Roy continues to accuse me of saying something I didn’t and also ignores the answer I gave to his answer. This is bad logic and bad rhetoric by Roy.

I don’t deny anything concerning the inverse of a statement.

No, you merely include, in of one of your 'proofs', a deduction based on the inverse of a true statement being also true. Something that despite you now seeming to be agree is invalid, you have never acknowledged nor corrected.

Don’t need to correct anything except your inability to see that the inverse statement is true via the virtual containment of the proof presented subsequently.

I’ve given a clear example of the degrees of abstraction since this statement. There is nothing vague about these degrees. The proofs are in the universal and if you do not understand this (which it seems you don’t) then your objection is based on this.

Another stunning example of JM_logic.

No answer again. God is.

If you do then you have knowingly made an elementary error and not only once, but now several times.

And more. Apparently in JM_universe, not knowing something leads to knowingly making errors.
Either way your objections only show you are inept at philosophy and logic and you consistently refuse to be corrected.
Classic projection.

You cannot be corrected. God is and he is beautiful.

8. "X->Z" means

9. 'Actually limited existence’ requires ‘limited by the contrary of the act’
[I'll assume you mean 'X->Y']
10. Also "~Y->~X." means
11. ‘Not limited by the contrary of the act’ requires not 'actually limited existence’
12. Which is not a non sequitur.
13. Also the inverse ~X -> ~Y means
14. Not 'actually limited existence’ requires ‘not limited by the contrary of the act’
15. Which is not a non sequitur.

The following statements are then all true

1. actually limited existence requires limited by the contrary of the act
2. not limited by the contrary of the act requires not actually limited existence
3. not actually limited existence requires not limited by the contrary of the act
Doofus has explicitly stated that statement 3 is true because it is the inverse of a true statement, and for no other reason.
I have also provided a proof later on, which you have ignored. You also ignore the universal and degree as has now been repeatedly shown to you.
JM does not seem able to understand that it doesn't make any difference whether a proof was provided later, or even whether the claimed-to-be-true statement is actually true. The error in the above is simply in claiming that statement 3 is the inverse of a true statement and is then true.

This is an error. Until JM acknowledges that this is an error he stands condemned of being incompetent at logic, all his blatherings about proving it later and it being in the universal rather than the whatever are just static.

The proof was contained virtually in statement 3 as has been demonstrated.

I don’t and you have not yet established that I have stated where I deny that “the inverse of a true statement is always true.”

When you used that 'principle' in the above frequently requoted extract.

Here is a clear error by you Roy. You say I said the inverse of a statement is always true, and your evidence for this is to refer to a particular inverse statement that I said was always true. If you don’t see the problem with this then go back to the logic books. It’s the simple error of a particular statement compared to a general principle. You accuse me of an error in a general principle and to evidence this, you point to a statement in the particular . . .eck! Even though I have shown that the particular statement is true due to the proof virtually contained within the statement. For to deny the statement is absurd. Its not that difficult to understand Roy. Your problem is not with me its with God and your inability to permit any conclusion to be true that concludes to God is.

I have shown however that the inverse of a particular statement made in the universal and in the third degree of formal abstraction is always true. Then I went on and proved it to be always true.

Note the ambiguity of the above sentence. Does it mean 'the inverse of (a particular statement made in the universal and in the third degree of formal abstraction) is always true', or does it mean '((the inverse of a particular statement) made in the universal and in the third degree of formal abstraction) is always true'? Such accidental ambiguity in a statement about logic is more evidence of cluelessness etc etc etc.

Theres those brackets again.

Again you have consistently ignored this and shows that you only have your stubborn pride to fall back on when I politely correct you.

Perhaps this refers to such 'polite' corrections as ' The only thing you prove is your desperation to avoid theism.' and 'Your language is desperate and your atheism is yet again shown to be irrational.'.

It was the 1st and 3rd degree and the universal/particular corrections.

You don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. Logic alone just does not cut it.

If logic alone does not cut it, then not even having logic - JM's perennial state - clearly doesn't cut it either.

Either way you just don’t cut it. The way you respond to philosophical arguments as presented in this thread and in others such as the proof for the spirituality of the intellect was hilarious. Lets face it Roy you have little to no experience in scholasticism and many of your objections are based solely on your ignorance in these matters. Your continued reference to logic is your only possible answer to the many proofs presented and yet your objections to those proofs have been repeatedly found to be in error. I don’t expect you to acknowledge any error by you as even you have stated some time ago “ I rarely make mistakes”. We’ll I’m here to inform you that you do make many mistakes and they are usually huge blunders especially when it comes to topics covered by philosophy.

Unless you have some earth shattering new arguments against theism, I will not respond to you any longer as all your objections have already been answered several times now. God is, and He is the only being in the universe who can make man happy.

Ah, the old 'I can't deal with your objections so I'll whitter about God and run away' parting shot.

The alternative approaches of improving credibility by learning some logic or ceasing to flounder about in a desparate attempt to avoid admitting to basic errors must be for some reason unappealing.

Roy

Nothing new here either. Gods is Roy. Time to admit it to yourself before its too late.
JM

[journeyman]

POWELL:
The only creatures who wonder are those with a sufficiently advanced mind.



POWELL:
That's about what I mean. It's a physical process that can take randomly ordered matter and order it into nebulas and stars. Or, so we imagine.



POWELL:
Where and when does God come from? If it's not required that God come from somewhere and somewhen then why is it required that the universe come from somewhere and somewhen?

John Powell

Your use of the word "wonder" seems about as unconvincing as mine. so, Please, can you answer my question without my otiose "i wonder" ?

I understand your phrase "randomly ordered matter", though it begs the question.(you say it is randomly ordered i say it is not-you cannot prove it , IMHO,nor can i). I do not understand how a physical process can order something about.

Your point about God and the universe, in spite of its apparent logic is deeply unconvincing.
God is all-powerful, ineffable, beyond our understanding, by definition, or, if you prefer, because we have not been given he brains to comprehend Him(Her It).
You may not like this unprovable assertion, but it makes sense.
You ask when and where the universe, But with respect this is by most thought to be outdated, as the universe starts with the big bang. Be that as it may,what IMHO does not make sense is to move from nothing to something by random accident, We know the universe does not work like that!

[John Powell]

Journeyman:
Your use of the word "wonder" seems about as unconvincing as mine. so, Please, can you answer my question without my otiose "i wonder" ?

I understand your phrase "randomly ordered matter", though it begs the question.(you say it is randomly ordered i say it is not-you cannot prove it , IMHO,nor can i). I do not understand how a physical process can order something about.

POWELL:
I'm not talking about giving orders but changing the system from a disordered state to an ordered / organized state.

JOURNEYMAN:
Your point about God and the universe, in spite of its apparent logic is deeply unconvincing.
God is all-powerful, ineffable, beyond our understanding, by definition, or, if you prefer, because we have not been given he brains to comprehend Him(Her It).

POWELL:
The God you speak of is in your imagination so it's interesting that you consider him to be beyond your understanding. Make your imaginary God understandable and he'll be understandable. Apparently, that's what Joseph Smith did. He had trouble accepting trinitarianism so he came up with an easier-to-understand God concept.

Anyway, someone could claim something similar about the universe: it's the most powerful thing and beyond our understanding.

JOURNEYMAN:
You may not like this unprovable assertion, but it makes sense.

You ask when and where the universe, But with respect this is by most thought to be outdated, as the universe starts with the big bang. Be that as it may,what IMHO does not make sense is to move from nothing to something by random accident, We know the universe does not work like that!

POWELL:
Does it make sense to you for some personal entity to exist eternally, never having parents or a beginning?

I guess you prefer the mystery of eternity to the mystery of nothing-to-something.

John Powell

[4given4life]

All I'm saying is that God didn't cause the evil but the free will of those who did the killing is then the cause of the evil when those wills acted against reason and natural law.





A negation is a lack of a good. A privation is a lack of a due good. For example, it is a negation for a tree not to fly or be able to think, it is a privation for a man to be blind or commit sin. The evil is then divided into physical evil and moral evil. Moral evil is the lack of due order in a free act than is disconcordant from the subjective rule of morals (conscience) and the objective rules of morals such as natural moral law, natural positive law and divine positive law. All of which are subordinate to the eternal law, which is the manner in which the natures of things are to behave as directed by the prince of the universe (God). This eternal law is from the very essence of God as its root cause and in the divine mind according to formal cause.



Examples - Natural moral law are those laws that can be determined from the nature of human reason to be the measure of reasonable acts. E.g. the ten commandments such as not kill, steel and so on.



Natural positive law is the application of natural moral law derived from reason with the will of the legislator to determine the law in particular circumstances. E.g. natural law say drive on one side of the road, positive law says drive in the right in the USA and on the left in England.



Divine positive law is the use of the divine reason with the divine will to enact laws to measure acts to be done to attain the supernatural end. For example, God has ordained that we must have faith to be saved.



Natural law is about natural acts and divine law is about super natural acts. Natural acts are done to attain a natural end and supernatural acts for a supernatural end. As all ends are subordinated to an ultimate end, then the every act is done for an ultimate end. If an act is done against reason, that is great enough for the will to reside in the love of the created good attained through the illicit act, then the will becomes ordered to that created good as its ultimate end of all it moral actions. Similarly, when the will acts in accordance with reason habitually then the will resides in the uncreated ultimate end of all moral actions.



Law is the measure of a moral act, acts are ordered towards ends and ends are ordered towards ultimate ends. When an act is against reason then there is a lack of due order in the act, this lack is a falling short of what it should be, and is then a 'sin'. From the deposit of faith we a retold that there is a relationship not only between man and God, but also between man and man and the universe and man. The actions of the universe and God are then related to that of man. We then have a partial answer to the existence of evil, which is that God has allowed free will and because of sin and the unity of mankind (at least morally) then physical evil is then a punishment due to sin.



Sin then has two consequences. If the ultimate end of the moral action is habitually bent upon a created good, then the true ultimate end cannot be obtained without an agent (God alone) moving the potency in the will or attachment of the will from the love of the created good, to love of the only true ultimate good, which is God. To love a created good above all things results in the man being unable to rectify his own will habitually and after death is then also unable to love according to the correct order of perfection found in nature. The separated soul then loves himself above all things, then subordinately, God and other created goods. But as the will can never be satisfied with a finite good, but only an infinite good, then this soul goes immutably towards that loved good that cannot make it happy. It thereby rejects God as its ultimate good.



When the will is habitually bent on the correct good in accordance with reason, it to has an immutable love of God above all things and then receives God as its ultimate love. A will may also be habitually bent upon God, but not have all its love focussed on God. Accordingly the love is not perfect and is then unable to receive God perfectly and the will then must be purged of disordered loved to be truly happy.



Evil then is ultimately a mystery but it is in no way a disproof of the existence of God. There is no contradiction to allow both physical and moral evil in the world along with an all-powerful, all knowing, loving God. Why then does evil exist other than as a punishment for sin?



As all things are ordered to act in accordance with their natures and God is the source of these natures, then the universe is ordered towards Gods as the end of all it actions. God then is the beginning (before) the universe ontologically and at the end of the universe (morally and ontologically). The more perfect the actions the better and quicker the universe will attain its perfection and the better the moral agents (man) act, the quicker they achieve union with God. But the problem is that both the universe and men do not act perfectly to attain the ends of the natures made by God. The universe does not do this perfectly because of the fall and is then subject to the curse and the subsequence physical evils and men sin.



As God is inside all things and directing all things to their end and if evil were to exist as an end in itself then the existence of evil in the world would show that God is not in control and it would ultimately show that God has been defeated or that God is not in all powerful. But, as we already know that evil is a lack of a due good, the lack is something that does not exist and is then not an end in itself.



What then is the end of evil? As evil occurs in the universe and the universe is ordered towards an ultimate end which is God, then the existence of an evil can only occur as an end, if it is subordinate to the ultimate end of the universe. But such an end is not an evil, but good. Therefore evil exists in the universe only for the sake of the glory of God whereby God permits the evils to exist, whereby through His infinite power, he brings a greater good out of the evil then the good that would have existed without the evil. This conclusion automatically follows from the notions of God, good, evil, action and end. This is a mystery in that God permits some evils and not others. But the existence of evil as a quasi-nature is shown not to contradict the existence of God.



In summary – good is that which all appetise. Good presupposes a substance or subject. Evil is a lack of a due good. Evil then is caused by good as the subject in which is resides and good is not the cause of evil. For example, a rotten apple is caused as a subject, by the goodness of the apple. The more evil in the apple, the less there is of the apple. It is therefore impossible to have a physical being that is 100% evil.



A similar argument is also made for the existence of moral evil. As the will is an appetite for an understood good and evil is a lack of good, it is not possible for a will to appetise evil. Any sinful act is then always aimed at the attainment of the good loved which is loved against reason. Therefore even those in hell do not appetise evil, even though every act they do is a mortal sin. Mortal sin is to do a moral act to love yourself above all things. Not even Satan is pure evil according to will nor ontologically. Satan is ontologically very good as he is a great angel, but his will is permanently bent against loving God above all things. Even Satan then gets a good out of his perverse appetite, which is to love self above all things.



A mystery is a truth that is above reason but doe not go against reason. Evil can be understood in the manner explained above. But the mystery of evil includes the reasons why God created anything, knowing evil would exist, and once the universe was created why he permits this particular evil and not another. Even the good God gets out of such evils can be explained in some circumstances but in many it will remain unexplained until all is revealed at the general judgement. There is much more that can be said about evil and Thomas has written much on it. More will be discussed about good, evil and the notion of mystery as the thread progresses. I have no doubt that these topics will come up regularly in defense of theism.



JM

JM, did you know that the God of the bible created evil? Also faith isn't a deposit.

[johnmartin]

JM, did you know that the God of the bible created evil? Also faith isn't a deposit.

You demonstrate both using reason.
JM

[B21C9L15]

POWELL:
Having wisdom and being wisdom are quite different things.

No, and yes. No, because the wisdom you possess is part of you. But wisdom is not like your body parts as a part of you. You and your wisdom is the same thing, in that it speaks of your being, physically and spiritually/imaginary. But then, some are wiser than you, and you may be wiser than others. But to whom we ascribe the perfectness/completeness of wisdom is to God. We knew/discern/sense these as true through the wisdom that is in us, which atheists lack in observing these things. Wisdom speak if ideal ordering, which is lacking in what we come to understand on how nature works.

Yes, because your physicality does not “perfectly” represent your wisdom. Same as when we say to a person, “She’s a beauty.” We acknowledge a perfect wisdom by which we judge people as wiser, or even unwise. I believe you understand me of saying when both are the same, and also when I say they are not the same. This is parallel in understanding the message that the Bible is God’s words, but not according to letter.

POWELL:
Assuming God is a person, only the last sentence is properly phrased. The first two should say "God has love" and "God has wisdom."

If I asked about your boss and you said the following, which one is properly phrased?

My boss is love.
My boss is wisdom.
My boss is good.

The problem is you are discerning what I say too literally. If you understood when we call Michael Jordan as “Mr. Basketball,” I was supposing you would understand things the same way when I say a person, or God, is wisdom. BTW, the very reason of me bringing up calling God as wisdom, or love, is to prove a point on the reality that describing God in letters, or even words, cannot suffice. There are hidden meaning in what we say that cannot be contained in words. If you can follow that Mr. Jordan is Mr. Basketball, we might even be thinking differently but we, perhaps, agree of what it meant for him to be so called. The same when we call God as wisdom.

Also, you knew that I agree that God is invisible (or imaginary if you will.) Using humans to compare in us experiencing Him is not appropriate. Besides, what I am trying to prove is invisible, and your demands involves the physical.

POWELL:
If you can't even properly describe the thing then it would seem that empirical evidence would be even more important in justifying belief in it.

I believe, yes. In fact even Jesus said to his disciples, “Unless you see, you will in no wise believe.” God can easily prove to us of His existence. But there is more important by than just merely knowing God of His existence, and that is of knowing His Godhead; of His wisdom, love, goodness, etc. And that by knowing these we can attain “true” peace and joy. And that if we can possess these qualities(wisdom, love, goodness) of God, there will be not much need to prove of His existence. The Israelites were shown wonderful works, miracles, and thus they believe of God’s existence. But they fell because of lack of knowledge of who God is. Knowing God of His mere existence, and of acknowledging His existence, is not a ticket to one’s salvation. There is a part of God in which is invisible, and recognition of Him is only of the imagination(unfortunately, it seems that, for you, imagination is merely a process in the brain, not as a tool to in our being to recognize the real and unreal.) Hearing a voice from above, that is having a contact with God, does not necessarily mean you knew the godhead. But there is one thing crucial which the demand for empirical evidence is inappropriate, that is if He is responsible for our whole being, the likely parallel scenario is that the computer demands explanation from its maker.

POWELL:
AFAICT, you're imagining some ideals.

Your words remind me of the Book of Mormon in which the story goes that the words of God were so wonderful they couldn't be uttered.
Scripture Verse:
Hel. 5:33
33 And also again the third time the voice came, and did speak unto them marvelous words which cannot be uttered by man; and the walls did tremble again, and the earth shook as if it were about to divide asunder.
B21C9L15:
What do you think about that?

I have not read the books of Mormon so I don’t know what the verse is actually saying. Many Christians try to explain God using similar construction of words from the Bible, but I sense that they do not even understand what they are saying. That, most probably, is similar to the books of Mormons. Most Christians today do literally mean God as a being that cannot be understood; that is wrong. When I speak of wisdom, words cannot suffice to explain it, but I understand, without confusion, what wisdom is. That is what faith in God is, there is actually knowledge and understanding.

What is ideal and God is synonymous. And it is of prime importance to know God as an ideal than just knowing He exists. Atheism do actually deny Idealism, in that, idealism would be more just an imaginary; as like saying good is merely imaginary. The fact is, the cause of atheist’s denial of morality is the denial of such kind of idealism in God. If all things are product of chance, in our eyes, then idealism, in our eyes, becomes imaginary(this is how simple to understand it).

Sure, many atheists would say they are good, they have morals, etc, but such were not of idealism, and such are meaningless in connection to their persuading of an ideal. Even when atheists demand order, it would be contradictory to demand from nature that knows nothing about ordering.

My point, I guess, is that people(theists and atheists) have their own delusions. And that, as for me, I know what I am talking about. At least for now, I guess.

Sorry if I flooded you with words.

POWELL:
Atheists and theists have a lot in common. That's because they're biologically similar and have many of the same experiences.

Still, in atheist’s eyes these similarities are product of chances. What we are experiencing as good may simply mean luck in the end. It is inconceivable to attach purposeness in the realm of chances. In this knowledge of disorderliness, is where atheists base their wisdom; this is what it meant to be fleshly. The theist’s wisdom is founded on the knowledge of an imaginary ideal order of things; this is what spiritually minded is. And it is usually not the inability to use words which makes the conversations futile between theists and atheists, it is the difference in the thinking.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Having wisdom and being wisdom are quite different things.

B21C9L15:
No, and yes. No, because the wisdom you possess is part of you. But wisdom is not like your body parts as a part of you. You and your wisdom is the same thing, in that it speaks of your being, physically and spiritually/imaginary.

POWELL:
Wisdom is something you have, not something you are. "Wise" is something you are.

If I have a car then am I car or a car-owner?

B21C9L15:
But then, some are wiser than you, and you may be wiser than others.

POWELL:
To say some are wiser is to say some have more wisdom.

B21C9L15:
But to whom we ascribe the perfectness/completeness of wisdom is to God.

POWELL:
That's what theists do despite the fact that they don't observe God.

B21C9L15:
We knew/discern/sense these as true through the wisdom that is in us, which atheists lack in observing these things.

POWELL:
Atheists imagine different things in that respect. God is in your imagination.

B21C9L15:
Wisdom speak if ideal ordering, which is lacking in what we come to understand on how nature works.

POWELL:
You're now speaking poetically since "wisdom" is not a person that it speaks.

B21C9L15:
Yes, because your physicality does not “perfectly” represent your wisdom. Same as when we say to a person, “She’s a beauty.” We acknowledge a perfect wisdom by which we judge people as wiser, or even unwise. I believe you understand me of saying when both are the same, and also when I say they are not the same. This is parallel in understanding the message that the Bible is God’s words, but not according to letter.

POWELL:
I'm not so sure I understand you. I wish you would speak accurately rather than poetically.

POWELL:
Assuming God is a person, only the last sentence is properly phrased. The first two should say "God has love" and "God has wisdom."

If I asked about your boss and you said the following, which one is properly phrased?

My boss is love.
My boss is wisdom.
My boss is good.

B21C9L15:
The problem is you are discerning what I say too literally.

POWELL:
The goal of accurate language is understanding. The goal of art (as in poetry) is to invoke emotion. Do you want me to understand or to feel an emotion? If you want me to understand then use accurate language, not poetry.

If you are unable to use accurate language to properly represent your ideas then I propose you don't adequately understand the ideas yourself.

B21C9L15:
If you understood when we call Michael Jordan as “Mr. Basketball,” I was supposing you would understand things the same way when I say a person, or God, is wisdom.

POWELL:
Do we call Michael Jordan "basketball" or "Mr. Basketball"? Then do the same with God. Don't call God "wisdom" but call God "Mr. Wisdom."

B21C9L15:
BTW, the very reason of me bringing up calling God as wisdom, or love, is to prove a point on the reality that describing God in letters, or even words, cannot suffice.

POWELL:
Let me repeat. If you cannot explain your views in accurate language then I suggest you don't adequately understand the ideas yourself. That inability gives reason to REJECT the ideas as imaginary.

B21C9L15:
There are hidden meaning in what we say that cannot be contained in words.

POWELL:
Then don't expect to understand that hidden meaning.

B21C9L15:
If you can follow that Mr. Jordan is Mr. Basketball, we might even be thinking differently but we, perhaps, agree of what it meant for him to be so called. The same when we call God as wisdom.

POWELL:
Don't you mean "Mr. Wisdom"?

B21C9L15:
Also, you knew that I agree that God is invisible (or imaginary if you will.) Using humans to compare in us experiencing Him is not appropriate. Besides, what I am trying to prove is invisible, and your demands involves the physical.

POWELL:
The physical is what I understand. I don't need the superfluous "spirit" to explain my world.

POWELL:
If you can't even properly describe the thing then it would seem that empirical evidence would be even more important in justifying belief in it.

B21C9L15:
I believe, yes. In fact even Jesus said to his disciples, “Unless you see, you will in no wise believe.” God can easily prove to us of His existence. But there is more important by than just merely knowing God of His existence, and that is of knowing His Godhead; of His wisdom, love, goodness, etc.

POWELL:
Notice that you've reverted back to accurate language in speaking of God HAVING wisdom, love, goodness, etc. rather than speaking of God BEING wisdom, love, goodness, etc. Stay that way if you want to communicate understanding.

B21C9L15:
And that by knowing these we can attain “true” peace and joy. And that if we can possess these qualities(wisdom, love, goodness) of God, there will be not much need to prove of His existence.

POWELL:
It is a non sequitur that person J having wisdom, love, and goodness implies the existence of God.

B21C9L15:
The Israelites were shown wonderful works, miracles, and thus they believe of God’s existence. But they fell because of lack of knowledge of who God is. Knowing God of His mere existence, and of acknowledging His existence, is not a ticket to one’s salvation. There is a part of God in which is invisible, and recognition of Him is only of the imagination(unfortunately, it seems that, for you, imagination is merely a process in the brain, not as a tool to in our being to recognize the real and unreal.) Hearing a voice from above, that is having a contact with God, does not necessarily mean you knew the godhead. But there is one thing crucial which the demand for empirical evidence is inappropriate, that is if He is responsible for our whole being, the likely parallel scenario is that the computer demands explanation from its maker.

POWELL:
AFAICT, this is what you imagine. Do you have any good evidence there's a reality corresponding to that imagination?

POWELL:
AFAICT, you're imagining some ideals.

Your words remind me of the Book of Mormon in which the story goes that the words of God were so wonderful they couldn't be uttered.

Scripture Verse:

Hel. 5:33
33 And also again the third time the voice came, and did speak unto them marvelous words which cannot be uttered by man; and the walls did tremble again, and the earth shook as if it were about to divide asunder.

POWELL:
What do you think about that?

B21C9L15:
I have not read the books of Mormon so I don’t know what the verse is actually saying.

POWELL:
It's spoken of in the singular: Book of Mormon. I didn't think you needed more context to get my point.

B21C9L15:
Many Christians try to explain God using similar construction of words from the Bible, but I sense that they do not even understand what they are saying. That, most probably, is similar to the books of Mormons. Most Christians today do literally mean God as a being that cannot be understood; that is wrong. When I speak of wisdom, words cannot suffice to explain it, but I understand, without confusion, what wisdom is. That is what faith in God is, there is actually knowledge and understanding.

POWELL:
If you can't explain it accurately in words then I doubt that you adequately understand it.

B21C9L15:
What is ideal and God is synonymous.

POWELL:
Correct. God is an ideal in the imagination. However, the ideal isn't real just like God isn't real.

B21C9L15:
And it is of prime importance to know God as an ideal than just knowing He exists. Atheism do actually deny Idealism, in that, idealism would be more just an imaginary; as like saying good is merely imaginary. The fact is, the cause of atheist’s denial of morality is the denial of such kind of idealism in God. If all things are product of chance, in our eyes, then idealism, in our eyes, becomes imaginary(this is how simple to understand it).

POWELL:
Do you deny the role of chance in your existence?

B21C9L15:
Sure, many atheists would say they are good, they have morals, etc, but such were not of idealism, and such are meaningless in connection to their persuading of an ideal. Even when atheists demand order, it would be contradictory to demand from nature that knows nothing about ordering.

POWELL:
Often humans perceive order even when things aren't ordered.

B21C9L15:
My point, I guess, is that people(theists and atheists) have their own delusions. And that, as for me, I know what I am talking about. At least for now, I guess.

Sorry if I flooded you with words.

POWELL:
Your delusion is thinking there is a real God corresponding to the one you imagine.

POWELL:
Atheists and theists have a lot in common. That's because they're biologically similar and have many of the same experiences.

B21C9L15:
Still, in atheist’s eyes these similarities are product of chances. What we are experiencing as good may simply mean luck in the end. It is inconceivable to attach purposeness in the realm of chances.

POWELL:
Humans imagine purpose.

B21C9L15:
In this knowledge of disorderliness, is where atheists base their wisdom; this is what it meant to be fleshly. The theist’s wisdom is founded on the knowledge of an imaginary ideal order of things; this is what spiritually minded is. And it is usually not the inability to use words which makes the conversations futile between theists and atheists, it is the difference in the thinking.

POWELL:
AFAICT, what Paul in 1 Cor 2 meant by the "spiritual" person was one who accepted as true the kinds of imaginary thoughts Paul had about Jesus and what Paul meant by the "natural" person was a skeptic who demanded that the Jesus claims be verified in the scriptures, or by a good argument, or to see / hear for one self.

John Powell