Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 127
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    For this thread to continue, I appeal for more contributors to this thread in order to get a different opinion to Richard's and mine.

    Richard has introduced a paradox of his own: "There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y and yet beings in location Y sin". (where Richard says; Y = Heaven and Earth). I disagree with this because on earth God's will is both done and not done by humans and humans are not in Heaven. I do not see this as a valid paradox and Richard is mixing together Heaven with Earth and I disagree with his doing this.

    Richard has introduced the law of non-contradiction. I am not doubting the construct of the law, and for reasons stated above I am not going to be drawn into an argument about logical expressions. I have responded and I could not agree to what I say is the premise as I have explained above in the paradox of Richard's creating.

    For those who would like to read up on the Law of Non-Contradiction that has been introduced by Richard, here is the link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

    Here is the first sentence of one of the opening sections:
    Interpretations
    "One difficulty in applying the law of noncontradiction is ambiguity in the propositions.
    Richard has introduced an ambiguity by combining Heaven with earth and on earth God's will is done and it is not done by humans and humans are not in Heaven.

    The problem to resolve is an apparent contradiction. Jesus said; "God's will is done in Heaven". 2 Peter 2:4 for example says; "..and the angels that sinned". If this refers to God' Angels in Heaven, then it contradicts what Jesus said. Either we accept the statement of Jesus as true, or else Jesus is a liar. Can an explanation be given that does not make "and the angels that sinned" a contradiction?

    Can someone else please give Richard and me the benefit of their understanding and how you resolve this apparent paradox?


    All the best

    David



    David

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    For this thread to continue, I appeal for more contributors to this thread in order to get a different opinion to Richard's and mine.

    Richard has introduced a paradox of his own: "There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in location Y and yet beings in location Y sin". (where Richard says; Y = Heaven and Earth). I disagree with this because on earth God's will is both done and not done by humans and humans are not in Heaven. I do not see this as a valid paradox and Richard is mixing together Heaven with Earth and I disagree with his doing this.
    David,

    It is pointless to discuss my parallel to your contradiction as long as your refuse to clearly state the contradiction which is the basis of your entire argument. You say that there is a problem with my statement of the contradiction you propose. So you need to state your contradiction in a way that makes sense. You need to state it as a proposition like this:
    There would be a contradiction if we said that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin.
    If that is not the contradiction you say can only be resolved by asserting "angels cannot sin" then you need to restate it in a way that you think is accurate. What could be simpler? If you can't state your contradiction in plain English, then how can we proceed?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Richard has introduced the law of non-contradiction. I am not doubting the construct of the law, and for reasons stated above I am not going to be drawn into an argument about logical expressions. I have responded and I could not agree to what I say is the premise as I have explained above in the paradox of Richard's creating.

    For those who would like to read up on the Law of Non-Contradiction that has been introduced by Richard, here is the link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

    Here is the first sentence of one of the opening sections:
    One difficulty in applying the law of noncontradiction is ambiguity in the propositions.
    Richard has introduced an ambiguity by combining Heaven with earth and on earth God's will is done and it is not done by humans and humans are not in Heaven.
    That is not true. I generalized your contradiction to refer to an arbitrary location "X" -
    It would be a contradiction to say that God's will is done in location X and yet beings in location X sin.
    You have rejected my statement of your contradiction. It is therefore meaningless to discuss my parallel to your contradiction if you reject my statement of your contradiction. The first thing we must do is AGREE upon a statement of the contradiction that YOU propose. My statement is a perfect statement of your contradiction if we set X = "Heaven" and agree that angels are beings "in heaven." We can make no progress until you accept my statement, or replace it with your own that is more accurate. Only then can we discuss parallels with different values of X.

    Furthermore, if you want your argument about "ambiguity" to apply, you must show EXACTLY what ambiguity exists in my statement of your paradox. You quoted only the first sentence of the relevant paragraph in the wiki. Here is the rest:

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    One difficulty in applying the law of noncontradiction is ambiguity in the propositions. For instance, if time is not explicitly specified as part of the propositions A and B, then A may be B at one time, and not at another. A and B may in some cases be made to sound mutually exclusive linguistically even though A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time. However, it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same fixed quality.
    Note the last sentence. If you want to assert that there is an ambiguity in my statement of your paradox, you need to explain exactly what is ambiguous about it. Now don't get confused. We are not talking about my "location X" version. We are talking about the original version that you rejected, namely:
    There would be a contradiction if we said that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin.
    If that is not the contradiction you say must be resolved by asserting that "angels cannot sin" then you need to restate it in a way that you think is accurate.

    After you state the contradiction you think must be resolved, then we can revisit my refutation. We can't discuss my parallel of your contradiction until you are able to state your own contradiction yourself. You need to express it clearly and logically. As far as I can tell, I have perfectly stated the contradiction that you say can only be resolved by asserting "angels cannot sin".

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The problem to resolve is an apparent contradiction. Jesus said; "God's will is done in Heaven". 2 Peter 2:4 for example says; "..and the angels that sinned". If this refers to God' Angels in Heaven, then it contradicts what Jesus said. Either we accept the statement of Jesus as true, or else Jesus is a liar. Can an explanation be given that does not make "and the angels that sinned" a contradiction?

    Can someone else please give Richard and me the benefit of their understanding and how you resolve this apparent paradox?
    There is no need for further explanation. I have expressed your paradox with perfect clarity.
    There would be a contradiction if we said that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin.
    Do you understand that this is a perfect expression of your paradox? If not, then you need to state your paradox with similar clarity. You need to state it as a proposition of the form "There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and ..."

    Thanks!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    There is no need for further explanation. I have expressed your paradox with perfect clarity.
    There would be a contradiction if we said that God's will is done in heaven, and yet angels could sin.
    Do you understand that this is a perfect expression of your paradox? If not, then you need to state your paradox with similar clarity. You need to state it as a proposition of the form "There would be a paradox if God's will is done in heaven and ..."
    Richard

    I think it is about time you let others speak if this thread to continue; I am finished discussing this with you. You do not want to address the the ambiguity you have presented by creating your own paradox because I will not confirm your statement which you say represents the paradox I have presented (IF God's Angels sin in Heaven). This is my final statement of the paradox to solve;


    We have a paradox when God's will is done in Heaven IF God's Angels sin in Heaven.


    I think it is about time we heard from other contributors if this thread to continue. If no contributors come forward, this discussion is over and others can make up their mind from all the posts in this thread who they think has been more truthful in getting to the problem of the paradox.


    David

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Richard

    I think it is about time you let others speak if this thread to continue; I am finished discussing this with you. You do not want to address the the ambiguity you have presented by creating your own paradox because I will not confirm your statement which you say represents the paradox I have presented (IF God's Angels sin in Heaven). This is my final statement of the paradox to solve;


    We have a paradox when God's will is done in Heaven IF God's Angels sin in Heaven.


    I think it is about time we heard from other contributors if this thread to continue. If no contributors come forward, this discussion is over and others can make up their mind from all the posts in this thread who they think has been more truthful in getting to the problem of the paradox.


    David
    Good morning David,

    Thank you for stating your paradox. But I'm confused. Your statement is logically identical to my statement which you vehemently rejected. This is easy to see.

    Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

    Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

    Your statement then becomes:
    We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.
    And when we plug these into my formulation of this paradox, we have:
    There would be a paradox IF A AND YET B.
    The two statements are logically identical. The one implies the other and vice versa. If you disagree, you need to explain why. If you agree, you need to explain why you rejected my statement. If you cannot or will not do this, there will be only two possibilities:
    1. You do not understand the most basic elements of logic.
    2. You refuse to admit the truth of the most basic elements of logic.

    In either case, any further conversation with you on any topic will be exposed as utterly vain because you either cannot or will not admit the most basic truths of logic.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Adelaide--Australia
    Posts
    113
    Hi David
    Ill share a few ideas....

    Paul was caught up to the 3rd heaven....not permitted to tell what he saw.
    Thy kingdom come ,thy will be done on earth as it is in the 3rd Heaven.

    Seeing as God created all things, some of his creations erred and lost their right to the special place where God dwells...whether in Heaven or on earth. Eden was a special place on earth where God walked and fellowshipped with Man, but man erred and was cast out , but he still dwells on the earth. Angels likewise were cast out, but still dwell in the 2nd heaven.

    Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but with spiritual principalities in the Heavenly realm. Jesus saw satan falling from heaven, due to the exploits of his disciples.

    satan came before the throne of God to accuse us, but he can no longer do that, as the blood of the lamb washes away all that would accuse us.
    God and satan have nothing left to talk about, and satan knows that his time is short,so he does his best to screw with the truth of the Gospel on earth ,as it makes its way to all peoples and nations for their enlightenment.

    Rev 12 comments.
    A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

    Israel is pregnant with the Messiah.

    3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

    Looks like a reference to herod, as he sought to kill the child .

    5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

    The ascention of Jesus.
    The woman is Israel or/and the Church. Israel in exile---The Church driven underground due to Roman persecutions.

    7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,
    “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”

    satans accusations have no merit anymore due to the blood of the lamb, and he turns his attention to hindering the Gospel on earth. He attacks it from without in the first 3 centuries, then corrupts it from within...


    13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth. 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

    Could be a ref of Constantine bringing an end to Romes persecutions of the Church.
    The woman/Church in the wilderness is later seen as corrupted in Rev 17.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning David,

    Thank you for stating your paradox. But I'm confused. Your statement is logically identical to my statement which you vehemently rejected. This is easy to see.

    Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

    Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

    Your statement then becomes:
    We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.
    And when we plug these into my formulation of this paradox, we have:
    There would be a paradox IF A AND YET B.
    The two statements are logically identical. The one implies the other and vice versa. If you disagree, you need to explain why. If you agree, you need to explain why you rejected my statement. If you cannot or will not do this, there will be only two possibilities:
    1. You do not understand the most basic elements of logic.
    2. You refuse to admit the truth of the most basic elements of logic.

    In either case, any further conversation with you on any topic will be exposed as utterly vain because you either cannot or will not admit the most basic truths of logic.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    I am not in disagreement with logical statements as they are presented in the text books. I do disagree with your form of words applied to the statements that are apparent paradoxes.

    Because of our opposite views, we are using different form of words. I did not want a form of words used that suggest God's Angels sin. I believe God's Angels do not sin, hence my form or words do not concede they did, hence I used the word "if". You have now used the word "if" at the beginning of your second statement and that implies (to me) that God's will might not be done in Heaven and your use of "yet could" implies that God's Angels sin in Heaven.

    Now when you can find a form of words that are neutral and have no bias, then I can agree with you. Unfortunately, you might have exposed the reason no-one will ever be able to win their argument with you, because you will dismiss them on logical grounds, when it is not the logic that is at fault, but the use of words. Unfortunately, the English language is not logical and is full of double meanings and open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It is not logic that we are disagreeing with; it is the form of language used.

    Unfortunately, I am still in disagreement with the form of your (second) paradox presented in which for "Heaven" you have substituted "Heaven and Earth". It is a paradox according to your equation only, but the reality does not make it a paradox (for the reasons I explained already). Humans sin, therefore God's will is not always done on earth, yet the same humans that sin can also do the will of God (but not perfectly). Also, sinful humans cannot be in Heaven.

    Alas, your introduction of your second paradox has diverted this thread away form the central theme of this thread and I would be surprised if anyone would want to continue to read this thread all the way through.

    We have the one (apparent) paradox to explain away. You started off by explaining it away and I did not agree that Satan could be in Heaven (or sinful Angels) at the time of Jesus was saying the very words; God's will is done in Heaven. If it was claimed that God's will was not always done in the past (in Heaven), but is done so now (at the time of Jesus saying his words) and those rebellious Angels including Satan were thrown out of Heaven (in the past), it was before Jesus said his words and therefore, Satan could not have been in Heaven at the time of Jesus saying his words. You then said that Satan was in an outer court of Heaven and not in God's presence and to me an outer court in Heaven is still in Heaven.

    You have now claimed that Revelation 12 happened in the past, and you quoted verse 19 as proof. I have explained this away as not happening in the past before John was given the Revelation. I explained this away by saying you have to read from verse 10 and what John is then shown, he was told to write down. All this is after the opening statement in Rev 1:1 concerning things that are to begin shortly to happen.

    So everything up to now that you have given me by way of an answer, I have been able to explain away or show as faulty.

    Whether you want to continue to explain away the apparent paradox which is created from not understanding who "the angels that sinned" are, or continue to present faulty statements that do not fit in with the proper sequence, is now up to you. You have by no means won your argument by straightforward logic or reasoning. I can only hope others see what you have presented in the same way as I do. If I am in the minority (as you are in your own minority), that does not worry me. It is better for me not to conform to the masses (who are wrong on many points) and I would rather be wrong on a few points and let others decide for themselves. Your opinion that I am wrong has no weight at all, and I am exposing your own weakness and failings in understanding the scriptures. Therefore, as I have asked before;STOP this form of words against me and accept our differences and just stick to the words of scripture and get to proper understanding. I will accept when I am wrong, when I can "see" that I am wrong. Until that time, you have to keep trying to get me to "see" I am wrong just as I am doing with you.

    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 09-30-2012 at 06:24 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Weeder

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    Hi David
    Ill share a few ideas....

    Paul was caught up to the 3rd heaven....not permitted to tell what he saw.
    Thy kingdom come ,thy will be done on earth as it is in the 3rd Heaven.

    Seeing as God created all things, some of his creations erred and lost their right to the special place where God dwells...whether in Heaven or on earth. Eden was a special place on earth where God walked and fellowshipped with Man, but man erred and was cast out , but he still dwells on the earth. Angels likewise were cast out, but still dwell in the 2nd heaven.
    Thanks for your ideas. It is refreshing to have another contributor to this thread. I accept you have given us ideas, but if Jesus had meant anything other than Heaven where God is and the Angels reside, I think he would have said so.

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but with spiritual principalities in the Heavenly realm. Jesus saw satan falling from heaven, due to the exploits of his disciples
    Which disciples of Jesus are you referring to?

    (Eph. 6:12) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.Paul is including himself with his brethren and sisters. I do not think what Paul says can be likened to the exploits of Jesus disciples. Jesus knew what human nature was like and knew his disciples would desert him at the last hour. His disciples showed little faith but were not battling against with governments and institutions that I think Paul is referring to. The disciples showed a remarkable change after the resurrection of Jesus. I don't think the disciples fell from grace from then on.

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    satan came before the throne of God to accuse us, but he can no longer do that, as the blood of the lamb washes away all that would accuse us.
    God and satan have nothing left to talk about, and satan knows that his time is short,so he does his best to screw with the truth of the Gospel on earth ,as it makes its way to all peoples and nations for their enlightenment.
    But what about all those who have not been washed in the blood of the lamb? Satan can still accuse them.

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    Rev 12 comments.
    A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
    Israel is pregnant with the Messiah.
    For those who see that Israel will probably be overrun again and put in a position of calling upon God to save them, that means the Messiah has still to come. That day is coming closer as repeating world events can be likened to a woman in child-birth where the pain of the contractions get more severe and frequent.

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.
    Looks like a reference to herod, as he sought to kill the child

    5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
    Who were all the stars of heaven and who made up the third of heaven that were cast down to earth?

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    The ascention of Jesus.
    The woman is Israel or/and the Church. Israel in exile---The Church driven underground due to Roman persecutions.

    7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,
    “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”
    This is highly symbolic language and it does not make sense for two spiritual beings at war; what did they fight with? What form of war is taking place? How does Michael throwing out Satan out of Heaven, relate to the real physical world? Michael is the the Arch Angel that stands up for God's people including Israel and will overpower Satan and the Devil every time. If Jesus destroyed the devil in his death, how can the devil still be alive?

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    satans accusations have no merit anymore due to the blood of the lamb, and he turns his attention to hindering the Gospel on earth. He attacks it from without in the first 3 centuries, then corrupts it from within...
    Satan has billions of successes to accuse before God without needing to hinder the Gospel message. They are relatively few who have been saved by the blood of the lamb. I think we have to think what these figurative stories mean in the real physical world.

    Quote Originally Posted by weeder View Post
    13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth. 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

    Could be a ref of Constantine bringing an end to Romes persecutions of the Church.
    The woman/Church in the wilderness is later seen as corrupted in Rev 17.
    Constantine lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and I thought from your comments about Revelation 12 you were saying these things happened in the first century, so I am a little confused as to whether you think all of Revelation is first century or post first century.

    It is interesting getting to the bottom of what we are intended to know by these highly symbolic word pictures.

    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 09-30-2012 at 07:54 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    I am not in disagreement with logical statements as they are presented in the text books. I do disagree with your form of words applied to the statements that are apparent paradoxes.

    Because of our opposite views, we are using different form of words. I did not want a form of words used that suggest God's Angels sin. I believe God's Angels do not sin, hence my form or words do not concede they did, hence I used the word "if". You have now used the word "if" at the beginning of your second statement and that implies (to me) that God's will might not be done in Heaven and your use of "yet could" implies that God's Angels sin in Heaven.
    Good morning David,

    Your formulation of the paradox is logically IDENTICAL to mine. You have not explained any difference between our two formulations of the paradox. Your explanation of why you reject it is therefore irrational. You are not "conceding that angels could sin" when you form the paradox based on the PREMISE that angels sin! That's what makes it a PARADOX! You must "presume" the truth of the thing you want to disprove or you can't form the paradox in the first place. It doesn't matter where you put the word "if" though it is much more clear if you put it at the beginning of the proposition. "IF God's will is done AND YET angels sin there would be a paradox."

    You simply don't understand the most basic elements of logic. You are not "conceding" anything when you state the paradox as follows:
    There WOULD BE a contradiction IF God's will is done in heaven AND YET angels sin.
    THAT IS THE PARADOX you say must be solved by denying that "angels sin." It is logically identical to your formulation of the paradox. This is the most elementary logic imaginable, and you cannot see or admit it. Until you understand and admit this simple fact, any discussion with you about "logical implications" will remain absurd.

    There is one and only one reason that you will not admit this obvious point. You would have to admit that you were wrong when you rejected my formulation, and you are absolutely unwilling to do that. So be it. If you are willing to cast your mind into the abyss of absurdity to save your pride, go for it. I have proven that you are being irrational, and any rational person can see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Now when you can find a form of words that are neutral and have no bias, then I can agree with you. Unfortunately, you might have exposed the reason no-one will ever be able to win their argument with you, because you will dismiss them on logical grounds, when it is not the logic that is at fault, but the use of words. Unfortunately, the English language is not logical and is full of double meanings and open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It is not logic that we are disagreeing with; it is the form of language used.
    Your formulation of the paradox is logically IDENTICAL to mine. There is absolutely no "bias" in my formulation. The only difference is that mine is clearer because it begins with the "IF" preceding the two supposedly contradictory assertions A and B, namely:

    Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

    Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

    Your statement then becomes:
    We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.
    It much more clear to put the "IF" before both premises:
    We have a paradox IF A AND B.
    That's the clearest possible expression of the paradox. Your rejection of it is utterly irrational. But now I see the problem. You apparently don't understand that A and B are PREMISES in the logical proposition! BOTH MUST BE ASSUMED TRUE to form the paradox. It is the paradox that forces either A, B, or both to be false. Therefore, the "IF" must go before both premises. You are assuming the truth of both A and B, and then saying that the contradiction implies one or both are false.

    Here's a little more detail to help you understand. You say it is a paradox because you assert that B implies Not A, and so we see the paradox is simply the Law of Non-Contradiction:
    We have a paradox IF A AND NOT A.
    That's it. Where's the "biased language"? Where are the "double meanings" which are "open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding"? Your assertions are blatantly absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Unfortunately, I am still in disagreement with the form of your (second) paradox presented in which for "Heaven" you have substituted "Heaven and Earth". It is a paradox according to your equation only, but the reality does not make it a paradox (for the reasons I explained already). Humans sin, therefore God's will is not always done on earth, yet the same humans that sin can also do the will of God (but not perfectly). Also, sinful humans cannot be in Heaven.
    We are not discussing the second form. That is simply impossible until we come to agreement about the formulation of the paradox.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Alas, your introduction of your second paradox has diverted this thread away form the central theme of this thread and I would be surprised if anyone would want to continue to read this thread all the way through.
    It is your rejection of the most basic elements of logic that have diverted this thread. You are trapped on the horns of a dilemma: 1) You can't refute the logic and facts I have presented, and 2) You refuse to admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Good morning Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    Thank you for stating your paradox. But I'm confused. Your statement is logically identical to my statement which you vehemently rejected.
    Because you were in agreement with my wording of the paradox at this point, I think you should move on instead of laboring the point of logical statements because I am not entirely happy with the form of words used by you. If you use neutral words or letters like A and B, we agree the basic logical expression. Using words can introduce ambiguity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    1) You can't refute the logic and facts I have presented, and 2) You refuse to admit that you were wrong. Simple as that.
    I am refuting the ambiguity in the paradox you present using your words. You have not presented any explanation of the paradox that I have not been able to explain away. It is "that simple"! You think you are correct and could not possibly be wrong in anything you have said in this thread and that is for others to decide. I can and have clearly shown your possible mistakes if my plausible explanations are acceptable to others.

    So , having agreed the paradox I have presented, what is your next step? You have given several answers, all of which I have shown your possible error, so what is your next answer in order to move this thread forward?

    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 10-01-2012 at 01:21 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Because you were in agreement with my wording of the paradox at this point, I think you should move on instead of laboring the point of logical statements because I am not entirely happy with the form of words used by you. If you use neutral words or letters like A and B, we agree the basic logical expression. Using words can introduce ambiguity.
    Good morning David,

    It is true that words could introduce "ambiguity" - that's exactly what your words have done. Our two statements are logically identical. You have not shown any ambiguity in my statement whatsoever. Indeed, my formulation is clearer than yours because your statement introduces non-standard language and unnecessary ambiguity. Specifically:

    Let A = "It is true that God's will is done in heaven."

    Let B = "It is true that Angels sin in Heaven."

    Your statement then becomes:
    We have a paradox WHEN A IF B.
    Your use of the word "when" adds nothing but confusion. It means exactly the same thing as my "if." So your statement really is:
    We have a paradox IF A AND IF B.
    There is no need for two ifs. It is much more clear to put the "IF" before both premises:
    We have a paradox IF A AND B.
    Your statement is logically and semantically identical to my statement:
    We have a paradox IF A AND B = We have a paradox WHEN A IF B
    Any other discourse will be vain as long as you refuse to admit this simple fact. You have diverted this conversation for many days by denying the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am refuting the ambiguity in the paradox you present using your words. You have not presented any explanation of the paradox that I have not been able to explain away. It is "that simple"! You think you are correct and could not possibly be wrong in anything you have said in this thread and that is for others to decide. I can and have clearly shown your possible mistakes if my plausible explanations are acceptable to others.
    You have written absolutely nothing that "refutes" any "ambiguity" in my words. You have not even explained how there is any "ambiguity" in my formulation of your paradox. And besides that, it is your formulation that is ambiguous because of your non-standard use of "when" and "if."

    It impossible to present an explanation of your paradox if we cannot agree about the statement of your paradox.

    Your assertion that I "think I am correct and could not possibly be wrong in anything I have said in this thread" is absurd. I have given you solid reasons for everything I have written, and you have been adamantly rejecting basic logic for days. So don't try to put anything on me. My statements are perfectly logical and lucid. If you disagree, you need to quote something I wrote and show why it is flawed or ambiguous. You have repeatedly claimed there was "ambiguity" but have not been able to identify it. On the contrary, you just repeat your assertion without even trying to support it with logic and facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    So , having agreed the paradox I have presented, what is your next step? You have given several answers, all of which I have shown your possible error, so what is your next answer in order to move this thread forward?
    The "next step" is for you to admit your error in your criticism of my original statement of your paradox in Post #23:

    • David: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin. I am not saying; "and yet angels could sin" the word "yet" you have inserted implies they do. I am saying that it is a paradox to say God's Angels sin. My argument is God's Angels in Heaven cannot sin (the same as they do not sin on earth. It is "angels" which are human that sin on earth and human angels are not in Heaven..

    You need to show that you now understand your error by explaining it in lucid prose. If you cannot or will not do this, there will be no way to reason with you.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •