• frank
    17.9k
    But “self” is a mystery, no? Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, (because the concept of self-identity is perilous if not illusory and really not coherent and not a conversation about any “thing”.)Fire Ologist

    Yes. Kierkegaard said that faith is like floating in water that is 70,000 fathoms deep. Sometimes having faith in yourself defies all logic.
  • Leontiskos
    5.1k
    I do think, in some senses, the Trinity, and even Christ on the Cross, do not make sense. These are valid questions for reasonable people to ask, and the answers are not satisfying to the one who only experiences this subject through logical syllogism.

    Like explaining why a song is beautiful - some things said will only make sense to someone who heard the song.
    Fire Ologist

    I think what has happened at points throughout the thread is an accumulation of several minor equivocations. For example, someone who cannot even read music might look at a musical score and move from predication to predication:

    • Not beautiful
    • Not satisfying
    • Not logical

    What has happened in this thread is that the shift continues:

    • ...Ugly
    • ...Dissatisfying
    • ...Illogical

    One might say that the Trinity is "not logical" in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) sense of "not able to be demonstrably proven by natural reason," but this does not suffice to infer, "illogical." The root problem is that a claim like "not logical" is vague and ambiguous, as it has a very large semantic range and could even be construed in positive or negative ways. It lacks precision and is therefore an unwieldy predication, especially when it is to be leveraged as an accusation.

    ---

    To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain:Count Timothy von Icarus

    He is very eloquent. :up:
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    695
    maybe it brings you a sense of Joy to feel that way, especially when others reciprocate.
  • Bob Ross
    2.3k



    What about respecting their decision as a free agent and not trying to impose upon their will by modifying it through rehabilitation, but instead giving them their just dessert? One ought be rewarded for bad behavior and good.

    That eliminates mercy. God has to be both merciful and just at the same time.
  • Bob Ross
    2.3k


    Collapse occurs at the syntactic level, not at the semantic level of possible worlds.

    The semantic level is a linguistic expression of the syntactic level. My point is that if you reject the possible worlds theory, then you are rejecting S5 as well as standard modal logic.
  • Bob Ross
    2.3k


    Again, you are confusing identify relations with predication. When I say "The Son is God" I am not referring to something analogous to "S = G".
  • Fire Ologist
    1.5k
    there is a difference between strict contradiction and merely apparent contradictions, or contradictions that arise through equivocation, or not making proper distinctions. And there is a difference between what is beyond human reason, or beyond the domain of logic and of univocal predication, and what is contrary to reason (contradictory).Count Timothy von Icarus

    I agree with that 100%. And you said it well as usual.

    I also do not think it contradicts any of the above for me to say this:

    I do think, in some senses, the Trinity, and even Christ on the Cross, do not make sense. These are valid questions for reasonable people to ask, and the answers are not satisfying to the one who only experiences this subject through logical syllogism.Fire Ologist

    But it was imprecise, and contradicts your quote above, for me to say this:

    the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes “contradiction” abound.Fire Ologist

    This is said more precisely as “the difficulty in speaking about mystery makes apparent contradictions easily arise.”

    I agree fully with everything C.S.Lewis said too. However, I think @Banno and @frank would say that the mere reference to three persons in one God is an occasion where “meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can.””

    I disagree with Banno and Frank that the Trinity is meaningless and contradictory, but I grant (I think in agreement with Augustine and Aquinas) that it is very treacherous to attempt a straight logical line through it - though not impossible, but understandably difficult to speak about.

    Let me digress to make a small point. It’s perfectly logical and there is no apparent contradiction to say there can only be one God. Without measuring God’s power, we can say God is the highest power, the immortal all powerful one. If there were two such beings, neither would be God, because neither would be highest or all powerful. God can have no equal nor anyone higher, and if you like a lesser God, we should just come up with a new term because anything under God is in some sense wholly and utterly unlike God. What about a lesser God makes them God at all? Makes no sense.

    This is logic. Reason can conclude monotheism makes sense and non-monotheistic religions do not make sense when they use the term “God”.

    If Frank and Banno were arguing against the logic of monotheism, we would need no revelation and would make no reference to mystery - it’s simple logical inference to say, if there is any God, there is only one God.

    Now we Christians have been blessed to know this one God through the Son, as Father. And have come to learn the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son and that the Son says he and the Father are one, and his spirit is God as he and the father are God. The church is the mystical Body of Christ, and his Bride, as when man and woman marry and become one flesh…

    I see the logic in all of that. I can go on making distinctions, and correcting error (like some of the things Frank said make no sense and contradict what I said and what the Church says). And there is probably some error in what I just said, but I could be corrected, because there is a logic here.

    I agree with you and @Leontiskos - the Trinity is the opposite of meaningless.

    But I also see that, on its face, (from outside this milieu as Banno put it), if you did not hear the Son speak, a “Trinity” could easily appear to make little sense. It is like explaining in words how an apple tastes - the words only make sense to apple eaters. It’s sweet, but not like sugar, because it is tart but not so much as a lemon, and it crunches but not like a roasted walnut, because it is juicy, but drier than a plumb - we could go on and on but unless you ate an apple you might see only apparent contradiction.

    So the OP was fairly doomed. Because unless it was asked with a humble spirit and the open mind of someone who is truly curious, it is highly unlikely the detractors of Christianity will ever get a sense of how the Trinity really tastes. (God even gave us the Eucharist - he did his best to reach everyone from every angle! I have hope, which is why I keep posting…)
  • frank
    17.9k
    Because unless it was asked with a humble spirit and the open mind of someone who is truly curiousFire Ologist

    I betcha I know more about Christianity than you do. Let's quiz each other and you have to answer without looking it up. You first.
  • Hanover
    14.2k
    A
    Again, you are confusing identify relations with predication. When I say "The Son is God" I am not referring to something analogous to "S = G".Bob Ross

    1. Yahweh is God. Jesus is God. The holy spirit is God.

    2. . Hanover is a person, Bob is a person, Frank is a person.

    3. Hanover is Banno. Bob is Banno. Frank is Banno.

    Is 1 like 2 or is 1 like 3? Clear this up for me.

    If 1 is like 2, then you have three things that fit into a single category.

    If I is like 3, then you either have 1 person with 3 names or a 3 headed monster.
  • Janus
    17.4k
    I can give you a more common example. Suppose we can agree to "love and beauty cannot be explained by logic." It does not follow then that "love and beauty involve contradictions," or that "to say one is in love, one must affirm a contradiction."Count Timothy von Icarus

    Such a weak analogy! Many, probably most, people experience love and beauty. They are simply not governed by logic―not things we use logic to understand―we understand them by feeling them. The Trinity is a concept―either an illogical, that is self-contradictory, concept or incoherent, and not a concept at all but just a string of words that make no sense.

    To quote C.S. Lewis from The Problem of Pain:Count Timothy von Icarus

    All that quote shows is that God is subject to logic, just like the rest of us. So, not omnipotent.
  • Fire Ologist
    1.5k
    One might say that the Trinity is "not logical" in the (somewhat idiosyncratic) sense of "not able to be demonstrably proven by natural reason,"Leontiskos

    That’s enough. I can let someone have that. If they then want to ask about it and ask me how I believe it, and what I believe, I get the perplexity.

    But if they are satisfied with that, and that “not able to be proven by natural reason” sums up the Trinity, and they have no honest question or curiosity about such believers, then it is certainly logical to assume a conversation about what the Trinity is will go nowhere. Which we have assumed from the beginning. Because we are logical.

    The root problem is that a claim like "not logical" is vague and ambiguous, as it has a very large semantic range and could even be construed in positive or negative ways. It lacks precision and is therefore an unwieldy predication, especially when it is to be leveraged as an accusation.Leontiskos

    I agree with that. I will say Banno was trying to be precise, pointing out specific contradictions.

    But unless there was an honest interest in what we are saying, they just won’t see the logic. It’s not like natural reason.
  • Fire Ologist
    1.5k
    I know more about Christianity than you do.frank

    Maybe. I don’t know.
  • Fire Ologist
    1.5k
    a sense of Joy to feel that way, especially when others reciprocate.DifferentiatingEgg

    Feel what way? What feeling am I talking about? Who is reciprocating on this thread?
  • Leontiskos
    5.1k
    - :up:

    I agree with that. I will say Banno was trying to be precise, pointing out specific contradictions.Fire Ologist

    The other thing we have to reckon with is the question of how much any given explanation or account is meant to bear. The diagram that Banno has decided to scrutinize is not meant to bear scrutiny from the hardened anti-religious. It is at best a heuristic tool to help believers remember some basic ideas relating to the Trinity, or to sketch the silhouette of the doctrine. It just doesn't make sense to take refined philosophical weapons and go to war against a simple heuristic diagram.
  • Banno
    28.5k
    I'm pretty sure Banno doesn't care about disproving any religious doctrine. He's interested in the methods theologians use to reach their conclusions, but even that isn't a very strong interest for him. For the most part, @Banno couldn't care less. He's just good at creating interesting discussions.frank
    Pretty much. The reasoning used in the simple theology hereabouts is low-hanging fruit for an analytic approach. It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god - but these threads always get a good audience, and plenty of kick back, which is fun. I'm supercilious and condescending, and despite, or perhaps becasue of that, you, dear reader, are here browsing my posts. Are you not entertained?

    That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.

    Leon is helpful in these threads becasue he is so predictable. When someone disagrees with him he will variously denigrate them personally, misrepresent what they have said and claim to have already provided the answer. It's a pattern seen across many threads and against many different posters, and is the reason that he is ignored by so many of the more competent folk hereabouts.

    He also borrows a strategy from Tim, to bury the discussion in appeals to specialised theological metaphysics, to insist that those who do not engage in the same texts as he does cannot understand his profundity. At heart this is an appeal to authority, together with a refusal to engage charitably.

    Tim of course has a better background in all this than any of us, and so never descends to the plebeian stance of actually presenting an argument. Hand waving and eloquence is sufficient for him to maintain his circumstance.

    Fire Ologist presumes that the posts here are trying to learn about Christianity. That's not something I'm much interested in, given it's ubiquity. Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans.

    So is this just performance art? Public onanism?

    What if Banno's point is more Wittgensteinian, or Davidsonian - that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? Then the arc of his assault here is in showing that all Leon and Tim and the others are doing is also a distasteful display of inappropriate behaviour? That in the face of the ineffable and the infinite, any finite discourse must fail?

    But he's not cleaver enough to be doing that, now, is he.

    Perhaps it's not a good idea to post these musings. But I'll do it anyway. These interminable threads make my point far more eloquently than I ever could.
  • Leontiskos
    5.1k
    Again, you are confusing identi[t]y relations with predication. When I say "The Son is God" I am not referring to something analogous to "S = G".Bob Ross

    :100: :up:

    These uses of "=" have caused confusion, not clarity.
  • Leontiskos
    5.1k
    Pretty much. The reasoning used in the simple theology hereabouts is low-hanging fruit for an analytic approach. It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god - but these threads always get a good audience, and plenty of kick back, which is fun. I'm supercilious and condescending, and despite, or perhaps becasue of that, you, dear reader, are here browsing my posts. Are you not entertained?

    That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.

    Leon is helpful in these threads becasue he is so predictable. When someone disagrees with him he will variously denigrate them personally, misrepresent what they have said and claim to have already provided the answer. It's a pattern seen across many threads and against many different posters, and is the reason that he is ignored by so many of the more competent folk hereabouts.

    He also borrows a strategy from Tim, to bury the discussion in appeals to specialised theological metaphysics, to insist that those who do not engage in the same texts as he does cannot understand his profundity. At heart this is an appeal to authority, together with a refusal to engage charitably.

    Tim of course has a better background in all this than any of us, and so never descends to plebeian stance of actually presenting an argument. Hand waving and eloquence is sufficient for him to maintain his circumstance.

    Fire Ologist presumes that the posts here are trying to learn about Christianity. That's not something I'm much interested in, given it's ubiquity. Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans.

    So is this just performance art? Public onanism?

    What if Banno's point is more Wittgensteinian, or Davidsonian - that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes? Then the arch of his assault here is in showing that all Leon and Tim and the others are doing is also a distasteful display of inappropriate behaviour? That in the face of the ineffable and the infinite, any finite discourse must fail?

    But he's not cleaver enough to be doing that, now, is he.

    Perhaps it's not a good idea to post these musings. But I'll do it anyway. These interminable threads make my point far more eloquently than I ever could.
    Banno

    No, this sort of ad hominem psychologizing and self-portrayal that you often resort to reveals how desperate you are to try to spin a narrative that has gotten away from you, in yet another thread where you have embarrassed yourself. In this case the embarrassment stems from your refusal to move beyond a diagram.

    (I quoted your whole post so there's no need to try to edit it away. It's a gem.)
  • Janus
    17.4k
    To your whole post :up:

    That, and that the OP was by Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.Banno

    "Do you want me to be Frank? I'll be Ernest if you'd rather" Benny Hill.
  • Fire Ologist
    1.5k
    Are you not entertained?Banno

    Oh Banno - you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. Turning every subject into the same discussion: Analytics applied to low hanging fruit.

    I know there is a whole person there - not just a living truth table.

    Olo is right that what is said in this thread is pretty irrelevant to the beliefs of the faithful. It's apparent that it's equally irrelevant to the beliefs of us Pagans.Banno

    You asked a lot of questions. I assume they were rhetorical then? For amusement. Fun.

    And now I think you might need to learn more about paganism.

    that there need be, indeed is, no explicable final answer in the way that theology presupposes?Banno

    That is your own psychological issue - and a lot of people around here - disdain for the absolute and dogma. Despite the Spanish Inquisition, theology presupposes no such thing. I am a pretty solid Catholic - nothing, no pope, no dogma, no mystery - nothing oppresses me. I usually rely on reason, but I don’t even have to do that.

    Frank, who is at the least earnest in his posts.Banno

    Really?
    @frank - you’ve been earnest with me? Betcha I’ve been more earnest with you..
  • Banno
    28.5k
    Pearls before swine... :wink:


    e2b5e1e04a36013eac4f005056a9545d?optimizer=image&width=1200&quality=85
  • Banno
    28.5k
    Intriguing how apt today's Frank and Earnest comic was... on multiple levels.

    Divine intervention?
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    695
    My fault, that was a little vague. I meant when others DO reciprocate such a feeling. Not that anyone here is.
  • Fire Ologist
    1.5k
    Divine intervention?Banno

    Definitely! :rofl:

    Divine enough for me that you thought to post that. :up:

    Seriously though, Earnest has a bit of perfection in it. God strikes again!

    “You are here.” With a clear line between them. Spot on! :lol:

    ADDED: Thanks for the earnest post!

    SUPERIMPOSED: Ironically, (where irony is opposite earnestness) the Frank and Earnest that you reposted was most earnest.
    on multiple levels.Banno

    :lol:
  • Banno
    28.5k
    Glad you liked it.

    ...you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. Turning every subject into the same discussionFire Ologist
    Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is.
  • Janus
    17.4k
    That's very cute! And apt in a way I find I can't articulate.
  • Janus
    17.4k
    Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is.Banno

    Right...as I seem to remember Hegel putting it: "The same old stew, reheated".
  • Fire Ologist
    1.5k
    Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is.Banno

    Ok. But is that all it is?

    I am not being contrary. Complementary yes, but not contrary. (And not complimentary just yet. :joke: ).

    Just because analytics accompanies everything we say, why always belittle the fact that so does the rest of the world talked about through the logic of what we endeavor to say?

    We have to choose the content too, or there is nothing to analyze, nothing to say and analyze. We don’t just make rules and make token uses of those rules - we say things we need rules to make clear.

    I would say re the cartoon, I am sympathetic to both red and green, I am there in the middle, not locked, analytics versus ironic poetry, but with both. “You are here” continues to provide plenty of content.

    Divine intervention?
    — Banno
    Fire Ologist
  • Hanover
    14.2k
    He's interested in the methods theologians use to reach their conclusions, but even that isn't a very strong interest for him. For the most part, Banno couldn't care less. He's just good at creating interesting discussions.

    So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. Does that really mean we have to rule it out? Think about it
    frank

    Yes, these threads have very little value when folks just want to tell us what their beliefs are. It's even more frustrating/annoying/time consuming to hear others' views as if they are authoritative, as in "Christians believe..." or "God requires..." These comments suggest anyone cares what another's theology is or that they think someone might accept that there is a single monolithic view on what God is or what any religion demands for authentic belief.

    Here's an interesting quote I came upon:

    “The image of homo religiosus is that of a man who craves to flee from the concrete, empirical world and escape into the realm of eternal being.”

    I like this because it immediately implicates true philosophical issues. It's describing a person with a different form of life with such a distinct epistimological system that he relies upon neither empiricism or even reason, but he seeks meaning in an eternal being. They would play a most confusing word game, but a legitimate one nonetheless.

    I think that's what your last comment was simply asking be recognized. The Trinity isn't stupid, worthless, or even nonsense, but it's not philosophical. It's not this worldly so to speak. It's not an insult to say that. What is problematic is in refusing to admit that. And along these lines, if one wants to argue that one ought or ought not be homo religiousus, that sounds like we're fading back to personal theology that we need to avoid.
  • Leontiskos
    5.1k
    Oh Banno - you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said.Fire Ologist

    Contrary to protestations and resentment from many, that's what Philosophy is.Banno

    We have yet another equivocation from Banno. What he did was give a strange self-referential account of why it looks like his activity in the thread is stupid but it's really quite smart. He is narrating his own activity and trying to construe it as "performance art" and "Wittgenstenian showing." According to his self-narration, he was trying to sink the thread into a bog of pointlessness! This post of Banno's was a very poor and awkward attempt at what the Germans refer to as "Deutungshoheit."

    So whether or not philosophy is talking about talking, this self-narration in order to try to salvage one's past utterances is obviously not philosophy. It's just a vain attempt to save face.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.