Gödel diagnolizes us all. — 180 Proof

I think he has a flawed argument. He get's into language games. Self-reference such as Russell's paradox is about how language can backfire. If we gave a barber the "barber paradox rule" he can ask for clarification in order to know what to do. Self-reference with pure numbers instead of language was what Godel was after yet we ultimately can clarify what we mean through language. Of course we can doubt axioms. But how would you prove a proposition was unprovable of itself such that God couldn't prove it to himself. And some of the Church Fathers spoke of the "deification" of man, which means that man will fully understand God and therefore know everything? How does Godel know they are wrong?

And you still haven't provided me with any kind of explanation of how divine simplicity does anything whatsoever to dispel concerns about the coherence of the trinity. — Bartricks

You believe God is contingent (contra Descartes) and perhaps don't understand God yet, so maybe your not at the place to discuss the Trinity. You think you know everything.

"On the other hand, let us suppose that the divine substance is the cause of the accident inhering in it. Now it is impossible that it be, as the same thing would make itself to be actual in the same respect. Therefore, if there is an accident in God, it will be according to different respects that he receives and causes that accident, just as bodily things receive their accidents through the nature of their matter and cause them through their form... Hence, whatever is in Him is there in the most noble way. Now, what a thing itself is, this belongs to it in a most perfect way. For this is something more perfectly one than when something is joined to something else substantially as form to matter; just as substantial union is more perfect than when something inheres in something else as accident. God, then, is therefore whatever He has" Aquinas

so in your mind Descartes is the pupil and you're the teacher. — Bartricks

Did i not say "for example"

Descartes himself said that God was necessary, eternal, and timeless. This is the highest being conceivable and Descartes thought it must exist a priori. His position on this is analogous to Aquinas's 4th Way. What is most perfect must be. I don't accept it as proof because I believe the senses are more reliable than intellect.

Yes and got a 1330 on the SAT

Or you could try reading Descartes. — Bartricks

Been there, done that

I suppose if you've arrogantly allowed yourself the luxury of ignoring what he atctually said - — Bartricks

then you can get anything you jolly well like from it. — Bartricks

False. A teacher can sense where a student is going without going by the students exact words for example

And which was the first one you understood? — Bartricks

Every word

That's not what I said. I said you wrote some nauseating things about love. You seem to have serious difficulty respecting what people actually say. Maybe you should stick to reading people's actual words and not deciding in advance that you understand them already. — Bartricks

And then you said in contradiction:

Why on earth do you think God loves you? Odd. You live in ignorance in a dangerous world - you think someone who loves you would do that to you? What a remarkable but horribly self serving lack of insight you show. When someone gives you the bird, do you think they're telling you you're no. 1 or something? — Bartricks

And then:

How is that an explanation? How is it anything? It's just a kind of woolly nothing. Are you saying that there are three distinct people - three separate minds - who love each other? How are they all one mind, then? And how does simplicity have anything to do with this? — Bartricks

You don't want to learn. That is why I asked if you were in high school

And just to recap:

You said (with that bizarre confidence that infects the ignorant) that Descartes published his Meditations in 1642.

It was 1641.

You then said you meant he wrote it in 1641 and published it the following year.

He didn't. He wrote it over many years and published it in 1641.

You then said you meant the French edition. — Bartricks

False. I said it was published in 1642 because I thought the French edition was published then. Why is that hard to understand. Why are you making things difficult and don't want to learn? You just try to zing people on this forum and beat your "arguments" over people's heads and don't listen to other people as if you were a dissociative youth

Are you in high school?

Wittgenstein said life is lived as the flow and game of life. Language is the game of life. However, he said if lions could talk we couldn't understand them because we are not lions. Humans can't have private languages within the species because everything is open and lived. However he was wrong. Knowing the difference between a lion and human takes philosophy processed as a private language. Wittgenstein was one of those "we can only be saved together" type person. I don't see that as reality and being curious about being and forms is a form of individuality. Witt was a proto-globalist liberal trying to subvert philosophy with stilted paragraphs on order to change the world

Oh youre right, there is a 6th meditation. The one explaining pain and God's design. The Meditations was the first philosophy book I ever read

Well I've read otherwise and I know he went to Paris to discuss his ideas in 1642 with the intellectual elite. He wrote his physics book next and then his one on passions before he died.

Anyways, maybe you are more Platonic than I give credit for. I far prefer Aristotle to Plato though. Dust we are and to dust we shall return. Death is not saying bye to your body, but the experiencing of death

Divine love is nauseating? Maybe. But Deism leads to atheism while the Trinity as an idea can withstand doubts. If someone believes in God it is most natural to believe God didn't just love himself for all eternity but is, instead, a family of persons in complete simplicity.

Descartes wrote his Meditations and published them in the Dutch lands where he lived in 1941. He republished it in French, instead of Latin, WITH the Replies to objections in Paris, 1942. That is the edition I read.

And you have to understand how Descartes really thought, not just what his words say. The cogito can never satisfy completely with regard to doubts, like deism cannot satisfy thought. Our minds are made for truth, but Descartes ultimate escape from doubt was the ontological argument which he presented in a form which made his non-local mind (as he believed) into the deity. He thought his ideas were intimately united with God such that the thought of him assured Descartes that divinity was real. But he thought his true identity was not in space and so God, as Descartes idea, was really a phantom of his own self, although he his this from himself

I don't see how you cannot believe you are a person of flesh and bones

Descartes wrote his five meditations and Replies to Objections in 1641 and published them the next year. Ive read them many times in addition to 1) Rules and 2) the Discourse, both in the Great Books edition from the library. Lol you don't know Descartes

I've read Descartes's full work from 1642. He had dissociative problems. And how do you know God did not divest herself of power this morning? Is it possible she has no power know and you're free to be an atheist?

Your idea that God can lessen his power stems from not understanding the Trinity. Your god doesn t seem to love anyone while my God love each other (sic) and overflows that to humans, implanting in them that God cannot change because the world is rational and raised up by the Trinity. Everything might disappear, even God, but as long as it exists the world is rational and a Trinity where one Person loses power makes no sense. Philosophy is based on rationality but you make Descartes error, who solved his cogito through his ontological argument which mistakes his soul for God

God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Those are properties of the mind of God. But the mind of God could lose them - could become less than omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent - and still be the same mind, the same person. — Bartricks

You believe you are nowhere but have a super-powerful (maybe today totally powerless) alien watching over you. Then mustn't you believe than that you have a body? I'm not trying to play therapist, but your position sounds very very strange especially when you factor in that you throw an insult into all you posts

Explain how God's being a simple entity does anything to explain the trinity. — Bartricks

Because we are en-souled bodies, soul forming the matter into the form human eye can see. We are in a social system on earth, where we relate to other beings. That is how consciousness works. It can't be outside the world unless you are God and God is bound by the law of love. Your idea, which you have no arguments for, is that God is bound by nothing and can annihilate himself. I'm sure he can annihilate himself, but he is bound by laws that are Himself. You don't provide arguments because, to be honest, there are no definite arguments on this, at least on paper. It's about conversing, comparing notes, and then going with what faith tells you. Your rationalism is getting into a lot of trouble here

Like I said, argue something.

We have minds.

Minds are simple objects.

Why?

They're indivisible. Half a mind makes no sense.

If they were divisible, they'd have parts and then they'd not be simple.

They're not divisible, therefore they're simple.

They don't occupy space. Why? Becuase they're simple. If they occupied space they'd be divisible and then they wouldn't be simple. But they are simple and thus they do not occupy space.

Your body occupies space if anything does. But all that means is that your mind is not your body.

God is a mind. So God is simple and God also does not occupy space.

Those are called 'arguments'. — Bartricks

This is not an argument. God is perfectly simple, we are not. Why? Because we are bodies in the world. The soul and the body are the same thing. I've gotten the impression from you for a long time that you were dissociative. Now I have your "logic" which you use to justify it. If soul is your identity, than you are saying you are nowhere

The Trinity explains how God has an equal (two actually) to love. Otherwise a simple God would be a supreme king like Allah instead of pure activity like in the Trinity. Even Aristotle called God pure act

Well then start your two arguments on this and how they differ from the way I put them and we will go from there

Souls exist in the world. This is what phenomenology proves. God doesn't have a location because he is MORE simple than a soul. He is on another realm of divinity, above spiritual essence. You haven't provided any arguments against this

Now you have a new argument. So far they are

1) One Gospel only talked about Jesus's divinity, so he couldn't be divine

2) Many religious sects claim to be Christian so Jesus really didn't found one of them

These are just plain bad arguments

Why don't you try and engage with an argument rather than just asserting stuff?

Now, back to the trinity: is there any contradiction involved in the idea that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same mind? No. None. There is no contradiction in the idea that a cube of clay, and a sphere of clay and a pyramid of clay could all be one and the same lump of clay.

What about 'The David', a sculpture by Michelangelo, and a lump of marble in Florence? Could they all be one and the same thing? Yes.

So, there's no obvious contradiction involved.

For some bizarre reason you actually want there to be, so that you can just appeal to mystery (for under that banner, anything goes).

Back as well to your claim that there are things higher than Reason. No there aren't, and I demonstrated why. Either you think there's a reason to think there are things higher than reason - in which case you're confused as you're appealing to Reason's own authority which only serves to establish that there is nothing higher than Reason - or you think there's no reason to think there's anything higher than Reason, in which case you've got nothing to say in support of your claim but are saying it anyway. Which is it? They exhaust the possibilities. But that's an argument and you don't like those.

Re arrogance: a doctor is not being arrogant when they diagnose you with cancer, are they? You reply "but I don't think I do have cancer" and the doctor says "er, yes you do - here is the evidence", and you then reply "don't be so arrogant". That's confused. What's arrogant is not engaging with arguments - not engaging with evidence - but thinking it sufficient that you think something for it to be so. — Bartricks

The Trinity makes sense because of God's utter simplicity. In humans the soul is always united to the body as its form. Immediately after death you find the resurrection. There is no "hanging out in heaven", if you will, without a body. The form is simple. We always can say reason is "over here" and will "there" as identity relating to action. But this is not the case with God because he is soul but not form. How this supreme soul acts and has purpose is through the Trinity. You make God into an object instead of an idea. The Trinity is above reason because the idea is a fluid one and not one that works be mechanics (like logic does").

I agree. I said earlie — Fooloso4

I was arguing actually that you can't prove the story is consistent. You are saying that because three Gospels don't mention Jesus's divinity the religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny

What meds are you on or should be on? I try to talk ideas, it is you throwing arrogant shit everywhere. To me your theology sounds very hippie and no you're not an expert on God

Setting aside all that rubbish, I'll point out to you that humans have soul (life), reason as its power, and will is element mixed into reason so it can operate. God is an idea we chase and they are not all equal. The clearest idea of God is that in which he is most simple, and it only sustains itself as an idea as Trinity.

Your idea of God is anthromorphic still because human souls have parts while God's does not. Even calling God "she" doesn't mean God is not *perfectly* simple. The Trinity is what makes perfect simplicity rational

And I love Buddhism. All spiritual ideas are truly about spiritual practice

How do you know they already believed? — Fooloso4

That is their opinion and it's self-consistent. I am not saying it's true. I am saying you can't disprove Christianity from logic.

And even if it were true, that still not not explain why something so important is not even mentioned. — Fooloso4

Have many times have you been to church? You don't seem to know how this community, who believes their spirit and state of mind go back to Jesus, thinks. The Gospels make perfect sense as Christian documents. Why are you taking them historically? Christianity is about faith first and then "God" reveals how he worked in history. Most Christians just try to point towards their faith FOR YOU. But when you claim their story is inconsistent, you need to back that up and no one on this thread has done that.

If Matthew, Mark and Luke believed that Jesus was God why isn't that part of the good news message? — Fooloso4

You don't think with faith or pre-faith. Christians nowadays believed the apostles believed like they did and they and Paul converted thousands of people. The Gospels were written for believers who already believed God was Jesus. They had oral tradition to back it up already and John's Gospel was enough to solidify it.

What are you going to retract your argument?

its Bart not Bert. — Fooloso4

Don't forget about Ernie

You have not rationally, logically, or otherwise explained away the reason why there is no mention or claim that Jesus is God. — Fooloso4

Yes I have. Christians believe that early believers already knew Jesus was God. If a priest is to give 4 sermons to his followers, why is it odd that he mentions Jesus's divinity only in the last one? You don't think about these issues properly

I think it's completely implausible

To a rationalist. Faith sees things differently

Show where in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus calls himself God. — Fooloso4

I just refuted that

In actual fact, he is being unreasonable and irrational, possibly due to ignorance, loneliness, and frustration. — Apollodorus

Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks

This is a fundamental mistake of Christian apologists. There are plenty of Christians who do see the inconsistencies. This does not mean they doubt the Bible. — Fooloso4

They aren't stupid. They see things you don't. That's how life works. But your argument was that "you would uh think that all the Gospels would speak of Jesus's divinity" when this is not true. Christians believe it was in tradition and that the first three Gospels were speaking of Jesus's humanity and life, while the last one spoke out authoritatively of Divinity for their followers. So your argument is wrong

If you use the rational, thinking person's eye, the Bible is inconsistent. If you can believe its contents, then your eyes are already providing skewed vision, so it appears consistent. — god must be atheist

Of course I didn't say that. Just because you believe only in reason, that doesn't make you reasonable. People who believe in things higher than reason are not necessarily unreasonable either. These are your mistakes, probably fueled by anger. Buddhists call reason a "mad dog" and believe the essence of a real dog is "non-dog"

Christians believe the Trinity and Incarnation were originally truths of oral tradition

There enough ways for you to doubt the Bible and enough reasons for Christians to see it as consistent. It depends of which eyes you use to read it

You are overstating things. The Gospels CAN be read as consistent with themselves and Christian theology. It just not necessarily the only reading. 3 Gospels speak of Jesus's humanity and John states the Divinity part too. No contradiction

You don't think there can be essential properties in God because you don't believe in something above reason. From Aristotle to Hegel, great philosophers have said the greatest joy for a human is to glimpse divine truth although it remains incomprehensible. Your God sounds like an immaterial Boltzmann brain instead of an infinitely simple being. Catholics emphasis God's transcendence and complete simplicity (which means God is one in every way possible) while Lutherans speak about God's complete immanence in being "everything in everything". I don't see a distinction between philosophy and theology. We get a lot of our ideas from archetypes and history. The Trinity is a high level idea which is philosophically analysable but cannot be made into perfect cognition by us ever. Philosophy and theology are too separate in Catholicism, I'll grant that. Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox do a better job on this and on God's immancence but a dialectic within Christianity is very important for growth of thought. Aquinas had a specific notion of God as utterly simple and as pure actuality and had countless ideas that are philosophically sound if you accept his premises. He was another Aristotle. His system needed completion by others, but he was a first rate mind

There should be threads on the Trinity on this forum because it is to be analyzed by philosophy by design. It doesnt matter if it corresponds to reality because even Christians say it is just an idea. Reality is unspeakable said Wittgenstein, but if the readers want to talk about a one sentence philosopher like him then they are missing out of some interesting thought process. The mind can have a very good idea of God and understanding how will and reason relate to processions within a deity is philosophy at its best