User Tag List

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 61314151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 254

Thread: The Big Picture

  1. #226
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80163
    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    Clete

    What about the old dilemma, I forget what it is called:

    If, over time you replace, all the planks,and all the nails and all the sails and all the ropes and rigging on a ship over time, is it still the same ship?

    What if you used the original parts of the ship to make a completely new ship. Is the new ship the same ship as the old ship?
    In the same river, different water flows - Heracleitos - 6th Century BC

    Change is the unchanging first principle...

    Which crucifies the Law of Identity...

    Arsenios
    Last edited by Arsenios; March 21st, 2016 at 03:18 AM.
    Arsenios

  2. #227
    TOL Subscriber Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 844 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    185394
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    I've been doing a lot of thinking about equivocation recently. And with it, these other terms: ambiguity, and homonyms.
    From the link today:
    “In non-technical contexts, the term "homonym" may be used (somewhat confusingly) to refer to words that are either homographs or homophones.[1] The words row (propel with oars) and row (argument) and row (a linear arrangement of seating) are considered homographs, while the words read (peruse) and reed (waterside plant) would be considered homophones; under this looser definition, both groups of words represent groups of homonyms.”
    I think that this second paragraph is equivalent in every way to saying that homonym is a homonym.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    I feel that there is a lot of trouble communicating within the same language with others because of these issues, and that equivocation frequently occurs inadvertently and unconsciously.
    DR and I differ over existence and reality. By existence I mean logical existence (may or may not be real) and actual existence (real, may or may not be fictional). By reality I mean either fictional or not fictional, or both fictional and not fictional.

    What I would consider existent and unreal is that which is logically possible (synonym to logical existence) but is utterly unimagined and consciously both unapprehended and unexpressed. That which is named is real, and exists, both; even if fictional.

    "The War of the Worlds" exists logically and actually, and is real; and is fictional.

    It's false to say that anything fictional is therefore necessarily insignificant and unimportant.

    That which logically exists but is unreal cannot be said because it is that which is logically possible but is as yet unimagined and unobserved and unexperienced and unexpressed. Fermat's last theorem, up til recently, sort of, for example.

    Logical existence complements actual existence with this condition: everything that actually exists is assumed to also simultaneously logically exist. And everything that actually exists is real, whether fictional or not, or both fictional and not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    The most obvious manifestation of this is when we put into our own words what our interlocutors are saying---IOW, what we think they're saying, how we hear and read and otherwise interpret what is being said.

    So frequently, the discussion/argument degenerates immediately into retorts like, "I never said that," and, "That's not what I meant."

    I think it's a plague. I don't have a solution.
    I was wrong about all this.
    Last edited by Nihilo; March 21st, 2016 at 12:44 AM.
    HE IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

    "It's better to have a gun and need it, than not have a gun and not need it." Ricky

  3. #228
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,728
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 1,667 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1534117
    Quote Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post
    In the same river, different water flows - Heracleitos - 6th Century BC

    Change is the unchanging first principle...

    Which crucifies the Law of Identity...

    Arsenios


    That's the stupidest post on TOL this month - easy!

    It not only does it do nothing at all to the Law of Identity it crucifies your own doctrine!

    That is unless you DON'T count God as the immutable, unmoved mover that nearly all Christians believe Him to be. Come to think of it, I don't know anything about what you believe. Are you even a Christian or are you some sort of eastern mysticism "both/and" idiot or what?
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. #229
    Journeyman TIPlatypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 23 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    4999
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The more classic form of the same question is...

    Consider a candle flame. It's obviously the same flame from one moment to the next but its constantly changing, does that make it a different flame?

    The answer depends on what the person giving the answer means by the word "change". Given a specific meaning of all the terms in the question, there is only one true answer, thus the law of excluded middle holds.
    But the law of identity doesn't. I am not disputing the validity of these rules, merely the extent to which they can be meaningfully applied to the real world.

    This is because as soon as you make a statement about something, you are change the definition of it, even if your statement is as trivial as "A is A."

    What these laws of logic really are, are descriptions of how the mind works. In fact, at least at this level, these laws of reason are the only method we have of describing the universe. So when talking about the universe, saying that it follows the laws of reason is not saying anything. Because the laws of reason are our method of describing the universe.

    As with the example of the candle flame and the ship, these rules need something more to keep them meaningful.
    But i should probably warn you, that every once in awhile, I actually do speak the Truth! - Arsenios

  5. #230
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80163
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post


    That's the stupidest post on TOL this month - easy!
    Thank you for the kindness of your words and thoughts...

    It not only does it do nothing at all to the Law of Identity
    When something is what it is, then it is not what it is not...

    When it changes, it becomes what it is not in a specific way...

    Things all change...

    Therefore they all are what they are not...

    As human beings, we treat them as if they are the same without change from one moment to the next so that we can regard them logically...

    The paradoxes of Zeno are only answered empirically...

    Logically, they are frozen...

    it crucifies your own doctrine!
    Christ crucified is my doctrine...

    That is unless you DON'T count God as the immutable, unmoved mover
    that nearly all Christians believe Him to be.
    Christians KNOW God as Three Persons...

    Immutable unmoved movers are creatures of pre-Christian pagan philosophers...
    This one being Aristotle...

    Come to think of it,
    I don't know anything
    about what you believe.
    Glory to God! We finally agree on an opinion!

    Are you even a Christian
    Oh yes...

    or are you some sort of eastern mysticism "both/and" idiot
    I am just a sinner who loves God and who treasures you...

    or what?
    Pretty much...

    The etiology of existence and change is the will of God...

    Reason is a feature of fallen human existence...

    Knowledge being the conceptual possession of a subject that has reference to objects through perceptions is a VERY defective kind of knowledge...

    Life Eternal is the ONTOLOGICAL KNOWING (eg as in conjugal) of our Creator...

    I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian...

    I used to teach Ayn Rand's philosophy...

    I am your friend, like it or not!

    Arsenios
    Arsenios

  6. #231
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,728
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 1,667 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1534117
    Quote Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post
    Thank you for the kindness of your words and thoughts...
    Hey! I call it as I see it! You shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about.

    When something is what it is, then it is not what it is not...
    Exactly.

    When it changes, it becomes what it is not in a specific way...
    Nope! It's still is what it is, even if what it is now isn't what it was before.

    Things all change...
    Change is what it is.

    Therefore they all are what they are not...
    Stupidity.

    Seriously. I'm not gratuitously insulting you. That is genuinely stupid. If this post is what passes for proper thinking in your mind, it throws everything you think you know into question.

    As human beings, we treat them as if they are the same without change from one moment to the next so that we can regard them logically...
    No, we do not! What planet are you from?

    You think an apple tree stops being an apple tree because it blooms in spring?

    Some things are more dynamic that others. How in the world could such a truth do any harm to the law of identity? Dynamic systems are what they are - dynamic!

    You might argue that to one degree or another, all systems are dynamic. If so, then that claim is either true or it is false (law of excluded middle).

    In short, that fact that things change (or the fact that they have any other property that you can think of) does not do any harm to the laws of reason. You wouldn't even be able to say, "Things change." and understand what you said if the laws of reason didn't work.

    The paradoxes of Zeno are only answered empirically...

    Logically, they are frozen...
    Not so! Zeno's paradoxes of motion have no empirical counterpart. They are not physics problems at all. That is the error in the logic! They are in fact mathematical problems and find their solution in Calculus. It's not even good math, really because infinity is not a number, its an idea. Not that it matters for this discussion. The point is that there is, and has been for a long time now, a really well understood resolution to Zeno's paradoxes of motion.

    Further, even if it were true that they had not been resolved, it wouldn't matter because they are paradoxes, not contradictions. There's no way you're going to understand the difference but suffice it to say that there are very good reasons why paradoxes (of which there are many) do not destroy logic, chief among them being the fact that without logic, a paradox is undetectable, not to mention hopelessly unsolvable.

    Christ crucified is my doctrine...



    Christians KNOW God as Three Persons...

    Immutable unmoved movers are creatures of pre-Christian pagan philosophers...
    This one being Aristotle...
    I agree with you! The death of God on the Cross is the most profound and important change that has ever occurred, followed closely by God having become a man.

    I was responding to your statement that, "Change is the unchanging first principle..."

    That comment flies in the face of easily 90% or more of what Christians believe. Nearly all of Christendom teaches that God Himself is the immutable first principle and that your comment equates the concept of change with the Creator. The fact that you believe God is not the immutable unmoved mover is rather astonishing. Do you reject the rest of the Augustinian doctrines that are logically derived from this premise (i.e. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, predestination, total depravity, etc.)


    I am just a sinner who loves God and who treasures you...



    Pretty much...

    The etiology of existence and change is the will of God...

    Reason is a feature of fallen human existence...

    Knowledge being the conceptual possession of a subject that has reference to objects through perceptions is a VERY defective kind of knowledge...

    Life Eternal is the ONTOLOGICAL KNOWING (eg as in conjugal) of our Creator...

    I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian...
    Then you believe that God is immutable!

    Come on! What do you take me for? You no more believe that change is the unchanging first principle than you believe that the moon is made of cheese! Practically your entire theology proper is based on Augustinian nonsense that he got from reading Plato! Not to suggest that your faith takes those ideas anywhere near to the extreme that Calvinists do but simply to say that, insofar as your theology of God is concerned, you're essentially identical to Catholics which means you believe that God is immutable, that He knows everything whether He wants to or not, He exists everywhere (even places He doesn't want to be and places that do not exist), etc.

    Was this just an intentional waste of my time or what?

    I used to teach Ayn Rand's philosophy...
    I DO NOT believe you! You don't even understand the most basic principles upon which her philosophy was based! If you got paid for such teaching, you aught to do the right thing and refund the money.

    I am your friend, like it or not!

    Arsenios
    Why wouldn't I like it?

    Grow a thicker skin and you'll like me a lot more. If you say something laughably stupid, I'm going to laugh and say that what you said was stupid. That doesn't mean I consider you an enemy.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  7. #232
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,728
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 1,667 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1534117
    Quote Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
    But the law of identity doesn't.
    Yes it does!

    The flame (or whatever dynamic system you which to talk about) is dynamic by definition. If it weren't dynamic it wouldn't be a flame in the first place.

    The dynamic is dynamic. A is A!

    I am not disputing the validity of these rules, merely the extent to which they can be meaningfully applied to the real world.
    To do the later is to do the former. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    This is because as soon as you make a statement about something, you are change the definition of it, even if your statement is as trivial as "A is A."
    Does that include the statement you just made?

    That question answers itself, by the way.

    You cannot escape the laws of reason. No matter how hard you try. The laws of reason are simply derived from the nature of reality. To deny the laws of reason is to deny reality. And as Rand so rightly pointed out, reality is not to be wiped out, it (reality) will merely wipe out the wiper.

    What these laws of logic really are, are descriptions of how the mind works.
    NO NO NO!!!!

    People do and say irrational things all the time! This is not the way the mind works, its how REALITY works and therefore how you aught to FORCE your mind to work.

    "[Reason] is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort." - Rand

    In fact, at least at this level, these laws of reason are the only method we have of describing the universe. So when talking about the universe, saying that it follows the laws of reason is not saying anything. Because the laws of reason are our method of describing the universe.
    This is just so false, I don't even know where to begin. They aren't "our" method, they are THE ONLY method. You cannot even postulate or even begin to communicate another method without using the laws of reason to do it.

    As I've been saying, you cannot escape the laws of reason. Every syllable you use to undermine them, uses them.

    As with the example of the candle flame and the ship, these rules need something more to keep them meaningful.
    No, they don't. See above.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  8. #233
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80163
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Hey! I call it as I see it!
    You shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about.
    ​​​​​​
    I would encourage you to think more deeply into these matters...

    Logically, Zeno cannot leave A, let alone get to B...
    Empirically, we step from A to B...

    Therefore: Logic does not encompass existence...

    ​​​​​​
    Existence still is what it is,
    even if what it is now
    isn't what it was before.
    ​​​​​​
    Then it is what it isn't, because it now isn't what it was.

    ​​​​​​
    Change is what it is.​​​​​​
    Change it movement from what is to what is not...

    That which changes cannot change without having what it has not...

    ​​​​​​
    In short, that fact that things change (or the fact that they have any other property that you can think of) does not do any harm to the laws of reason. You wouldn't even be able to say, "Things change." and understand what you said if the laws of reason didn't work.​​​​​​
    You are affirming the absolutism of reason to apprehend reality,
    and I am affirming the falleness of the reality apprehended by reason...

    Reason as an existent is a minutely small item in what is real...
    Reality is greater than reason...

    ​​​​​​
    I was responding to your statement that, "Change is the unchanging first principle..."​​​​​​
    I feared as much - I did say that, but it was in response to, and a differently similar parallel, to another poster's point, showing that he had been anticipated in 600BC - The statement summarized both his and Heracleitos' understanding, and in that understanding, "Change is the unchanging first principle", which does indeed have certain cognitive consequences... But you are right, I do not hold to this view at all... I affirm philosophic nihilism, or: "Philosophy is intrinsicly nihilistic"...

    Not to mention boring...

    ​​​​​​
    The fact that you believe God is not the immutable unmoved mover is rather astonishing. Do you reject the rest of the Augustinian doctrines that are logically derived from this premise (i.e. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, predestination, total depravity, etc.) ​​​​​​
    I reject logical derivation in Christian doctrine...

    ​​​​​​
    I DO NOT believe you!
    You don't even understand the most basic principles upon which her philosophy was based!
    If you got paid for such teaching, you aught to do the right thing and refund the money.​​​​​​
    Too funny! I was not paid to teach Objectivism - It was a student club at SDSU back in the 60's and early '70's... I knew Nathaniel Branden... I was an atheist under her tuteledge and Nathan's until I suffered Aquinas' fate and encountered God... It is all straw, my Brother... Every word of it...

    ​​​​​​
    Why wouldn't I like it?​​​​​​
    I don't think you like stupid, that's why!

    ​​​​​​
    Grow a thicker skin and you'll like me a lot more.​​​​​​
    I like you fine right now - And besides, I am taking sensitivity classes, and am not supposed to grow thicker skin, lest I flunk out... I used to live in the Objectivist ethereals where you are hanging out right now... In my 20's... 50 years ago... You are familiar to me...

    ​​​​​​Arsenios
    Arsenios

  9. #234
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,728
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 1,667 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1534117
    Anyone who debates Arsinios after having read his last post is a fool.

    Talk to him about pin wheels and butterflies. Talk to him about whether a steak tastes better well done or medium rare. Talk to him about anything trivial or opinion based but do not debate him. He has removed his head.
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  10. #235
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80163
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Anyone
    who debates Arsinios
    after having read his last post
    is a fool.
    Words are futile!!

    But you may notice that I am no Wesley Mouche...

    God cursed the ground upon the fall of Adam and banished him from the Garden...

    Holy Tradition finds Adam not leaving the gates of Eden, into which he was unable to re-enter, the entirety of the span of his lifetime - More than 900 years...

    HE knew what he had lost...
    YOU and I not so much...

    So I have a proposal! Screw debate! You can just talk to me!

    I mean, what a concept!

    Talk to him about pin wheels and butterflies.
    Talk to him about whether a steak tastes better well done or medium rare.
    Talk to him about anything trivial or opinion based
    but do not debate him.
    He has removed his head.
    I know - YOU want to talk about REAL, SOLID, OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE...

    But consider this:

    Have you ever changed your mind?
    As in a major turn-around of thought?
    I sure hope so...

    I have too...

    The whole Rand corpus of understanding rests on the premise of the SUBORDINATION of thought to MATERIAL EXISTENCE, does it not? That is perfectly reasonable, and provides the person a baseline for judgement... But IF you live in such a world, then you are SUBJECT to MATERIALITY, which is CREATED by God... And the whole point of the Christian Faith is to NOT BE SUBJECT to creation, but to God Who created creation...

    And in this means that if one clings to the logical apprehension one has acquired in dealing with OBJECTS, in one's apprehension of God, one will not be able to avoid apprehending God qua creation, eg as created... Objectivism is fine for apprehending objects, you see... Trains and quarries of stone and dynamite and objects of art - Haut Cusine anyone? - But it cannot effectively engage issues of the mind which are not objects... And in the heart of fallen man exist good and evil, and dealing with evil is NOT merely a matter of judging evil as evil and turning away to the good... We are WAY deeper than that...

    Which is why the Gospel reads:

    Be ye repenting...
    And be ye baptized...
    Because...
    The Kingdom of Heaven...
    IS at hand...


    You see, you CAN, if you so choose to do so, focus your mind on the very process of thinking...
    For the Kingdom of Heaven is within you...
    And so is hell...
    And purification of the Heart is repentance...
    It is discipled in the Body of Christ...
    By those who have acquired it...

    You can talk with me...

    Debate is for the screw-tape-isters!

    And Ayn Rand died alone and bitter...

    Arsenios
    Arsenios

  11. #236
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 182 Times in 115 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    451547
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I use the law of gravity as an analogy and if you like you can drop the word 'law' if you wish.
    OK, thanks for acknowledging this. However, I think that your following paragraphs indicate that the habit dies hard.

    I am not talking about ink on paper or any description of reality but rather reality itself. No understanding of which is at all possible unless A is A. And in the same sense that you cannot walk off a cliff and expect not to fall to the bottom, you CANNOT reject, ignore or undermine the fact that A is A without a similar fate.

    Now, you can write it down or not; you can call that a law or not, it is what it is because A is A regardless of what we call it or whether we call it anything or even bother to acknowledge it.

    All of which, by the way, I am quite certain you agree with so I still can't figure out what your point is.
    Excellent. I am glad you are seeing the difference between a law - a form of words used to describe a perceived reality - and the reality itself.

    No, I mean both. A is A. Attempt to refute that and you'll have to use it as though it were true in order to make your argument. It is utterly, totally, completely and in all ways and in all contexts irrefragable - period.
    Clete, you are preaching to the converted. I already acknowledged the validity of your principles of logic.

    That's what makes it a law, DR! There are people who insist that they are aliens from another planet, that doesn't it true! You know why it doesn't make it true? It's because no amount of irrational stupidity can counteract 'A is A'!
    But this is where you are going wrong. When reality is perceived, there are many things you can say about it. You don't have to say A about it. You can say B. Both can be true. The fact that you are not an alien from another planet is not because you are something else.

    You could be a teapot and yet still be an alien from another planet. A planet where all the inhabitants are teapots. Living, reproducing, socialite teapots. All you can say is this: IF it is agreed that this is A, then it is not NOT A. This is what I mean by constraint. A constraint is something negative. Constraints arise in a shared environment. A constraint limits what you can say about some shared thing. But it doesn't dictate what you actually do say about it. Constraints arise from a shared language. You can say this is a chair but you can't say it is a cupboard. You can say it is a sofa or an armchair or a sea of comfort but you can't say it is a stool or the Atlantic Ocean. The reason for this is not only because of what the thing is in itself but because of the language we share when we make statements. Such statements are not for ourselves only. They are for all (potentially) sharers of your language. And you even assume that your statements are for all future users of your language and for all non-speakers of your language where such speakers speak a different language which can be translated into your own. However, there is an even more basic assumption at work here. It is that if the universe is one, then the reality we experience is capable of being experienced across reality as a whole. And so you assume that the language you use, because it is a language intended to be shared, is actually completely universal. It is this universality of language across reality that produces (or at least allows) conscience.

    Nature is not self-contradictory. It does not break its own laws because it cannot break its own laws. The law of gravity is merely an analogy.
    You seem to be lapsing back to old habits. The laws are not nature's. They are yours. The reason why nature doesn't appear to disobey them is because when you formulated them, you used, as you had to, language that was universal.

    I get that Fg = G x ((m1 x m2)/ R2) is not gravity itself but merely an idea expressed to describe it. The laws of reason are a bit different though because they are ideas not objects or forces of nature. 'A is A' PERFECTLY communicates the law of identity and cannot be wrong in any context. I'm not sure that I understand what the actually difference is between the words 'A is A' and the meaning those words convey. Ideas cannot be communicated except through language so what's the point of even making the distinction? Whether I write it down or simply understand conceptually that A is A, what's the difference?
    Above, I referred to the universality of language. I asked you earlier what you meant by mind when you said that the laws of reason governed the mind. You gave a somewhat dismissive answer. But it is of extreme importance. Because we have already agreed that the universe is all that is real. If this is so, then language needs to be both written on and interpreted by something that is also real. Try to understand that I am not asking you about the rationale behind the laws of reason. We have to move on from there. We need to ask what are we physically (I mean in reality) doing when we make some statement like 'This is a chair'. And what are we doing also when someone else says it to us. You pointed to vague notions of the mind but surely we should be a lot more concrete and specific than that? To avoid long posts I shall continue in another post. I suggest you wait for it.
    Last edited by Desert Reign; March 26th, 2016 at 06:14 PM.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Desert Reign For Your Post:

    glorydaz (March 29th, 2016)

  13. #237
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,728
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 1,667 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1534117
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    The fact that you are not an alien from another planet is not because you are something else.
    I will respond only to this single sentence for now and will wait for your next post to respond to anything else.

    Your statement is not always true. Being what we Earthlings would call a blue insect, for example, may be compatible with being an alien from another planet but being a human being born of human parents in America is not.

    "A is A" is an AFFIRMATIVE statement, not a negative one. As such, the laws of reason are not merely "constraints" as you call them. The constraint you refer to is nothing at all other than a statement of the law of contradiction. Contradictions are false, by definition and as such if there is an established fact that is in contradiction to the notion of one being an alien from another planet then it is BECAUSE of that fact (perhaps among others) that you can know that he is not an alien from another planet. That's how reason works. That the only way reason can work. And it works that way every single solitary time with no exceptions ever - period. Thus the term LAW is valid in all contexts and in all languages whether spoken or written or otherwise conceptualized.

    Can someone please explain what this has to do with morality?
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  14. #238
    TOL Subscriber Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 844 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    185394
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    It's still is what it is, even if what it is now isn't what it was before.

    ...Nearly all of Christendom teaches that God Himself is the immutable first principle

    ...Then you believe that God is immutable!

    ...you believe that God is immutable
    Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "immutable."

    For one thing, if our Maker is not immutable, then when I say "our Maker" now, there is no way to definitively correlate this "our Maker" with the "our Maker" from the first century, nor with "our Maker" from the time of Moses or Job, nor with "our Maker" from Genesis chapter one. (Unless there is a detailed and intricate map of sorts, that traces His changes throughout time, so that we can definitively correlate Him now with Who He used to be at each point in history. And such a map would need to be as authoritative as Sacred Scripture itself in order to be of any use to the faithful, since otherwise it must all boil down to opinions.)

    And for another thing Sacred Scripture (James 1:17) specifically says concerning our Maker, "with whom is no variableness."
    HE IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

    "It's better to have a gun and need it, than not have a gun and not need it." Ricky

  15. #239
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,728
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 1,667 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1534117
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "immutable."

    For one thing, if our Maker is not immutable, then when I say "our Maker" now, there is no way to definitively correlate this "our Maker" with the "our Maker" from the first century, nor with "our Maker" from the time of Moses or Job, nor with "our Maker" from Genesis chapter one. (Unless there is a detailed and intricate map of sorts, that traces His changes throughout time, so that we can definitively correlate Him now with Who He used to be at each point in history. And such a map would need to be as authoritative as Sacred Scripture itself in order to be of any use to the faithful, since otherwise it must all boil down to opinions.)
    This is all entirely false. You have changed in many ways since you were born but you don't have to have some third party source of information to definitively correlate the you of today with the you of your youth.

    Further, the classical understanding of God's immutability is NOT in the bible at all. The Classical understanding of the term does just mean "unchanging", it means incapable of ANY change WHATSOEVER. It is entirely antithetical to scripture and would in fact falsify Christianity in particular.

    And for another thing Sacred Scripture (James 1:17) specifically says concerning our Maker, "with whom is no variableness."
    Yes, it does but again, the doctrine of immutability goes much further than what James says. James is simply saying that God is invariably good, that He is unalterably righteous. James, in other words, is talking about WHO God is, His character. But you'd have never heard of James if God could not change AT ALL as the doctrine of Immutability teaches. God BECAME a man (and remains one to this day). God died for you sins and mine! God rose to life from the dead by His own power. (John 10:17 - 18)

    And that isn't the only way God changes. God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14). God is pleased at one time (Matt. 3:17) and angry at another (Exodus 32:10). God deals with mankind in one way and then does something entirely different later on (i.e. Law vs. Grace). Etc.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  16. #240
    TOL Subscriber Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 844 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    185394
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    You have changed in many ways since you were born but you don't have to have some third party source of information to definitively correlate the you of today with the you of your youth.
    But the me of my youth was actually a different person than the me right now. We think differently, feel differently, have different habits, different preferences. There are things that are the same, sure, but there are also a lot of distinctions. This is true with everybody.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Further, the classical understanding of God's immutability is NOT in the bible at all.
    I didn't bring up this classical understanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    God BECAME a man (and remains one to this day). God died for you sins and mine! God rose to life from the dead by His own power. (John 10:17 - 18)
    I'm not sure it's correct to say that our Maker died. But we agree essentially on everything else (and we may even agree on our Maker dying; I just need to study what the Holy See says about this, if anything).
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    And that isn't the only way God changes. God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14). God is pleased at one time (Matt. 3:17) and angry at another (Exodus 32:10). God deals with mankind in one way and then does something entirely different later on (i.e. Law vs. Grace). Etc.
    OK.
    HE IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

    "It's better to have a gun and need it, than not have a gun and not need it." Ricky

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us