Re: POLITICS RELIGION | The Trinity

[Guest guest]

[Chris] OKAY...

As you can see the " one " in the Trinity refers to something wholly other than

the " three. " We cannot fully understand the Trinity from language (which is

human and imperfect) or logic (which is human and imperfect, and which, in any

case, cannot itself lead to the understanding of anything); however there are

no logical contradictions within it.

[Deanna] I'll get back to Biblical stuff and your lengthy definition over the

weekend, just so you know that I will reply in a few days (and others may be

thrilled with a break from this thread).

Thank you for spelling it out, truly. It helps tremendously. I will review it

in detail, but on the surface, I see no issues with the doctrine that you have

spelled out. Again, I do appreciate the effort so that we can all be on the

same page, so to speak.

*BUT* your statement above is unbelievable! Logic is an attribute of God

reflected in nature ... at least for theists. Induction is never certain, but

not because logic is human and imperfect! Using the language of mathematics AND

other languages that humans discovered and/or invented, we can deduce all sorts

of things. All of your education is for naught if you truly believe that,

" ...logic (which is human and imperfect, and which, in any case, cannot itself

lead to the understanding of anything)... " See my former professor's homepage

for some great logic lesson powerpoint presentations.

http://www.ipfw.edu/phil/faculty/Strayer/

" Critical thinking =df. The careful, deliberate determination of whether we

should accept, reject, or suspend judgement about a claim - and of the degree of

confidence with which we should accept or reject it. "

If, as you say, you cannot understand the Trinity from logic, then how in the

world can you claim that no " logical contradictions " exist in it?

~ Deanna

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 10:49:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

[Deanna]

> *BUT* your statement above is unbelievable! Logic is an attribute of God

> reflected in nature ... at least for theists. Induction is never certain,

> but not because logic is human and imperfect!

____

[CHRIS]

I think you misunderstood me. What I meant is that logic is an imperfect tool

for fully understanding God. Logic is perfect with respect to its

appropriate use, but understanding is different from logic. We can use logic

with

unknowns. For example, if, of the unknowns A, B and C, we can say A = B and B =

C,

we can, with perfect logic and perfect certainty, reason that A = C. Yet, we

do not need to know what A is, except that it is some unknown labelled A. We

can logically reason that, since time is finite, God, having no beginning or

end, must exist outside the confines of time, but we cannot with our limited

understandings as humans actually fathom and comprehend what it is to be

outside of time.

In Orthodox liturgical music, we have a two-part harmony of a melody and a

single note that is held for periods of time (it shifts, at certain points, but

it is held continuously), called the iso. The latter is traditionally sung

without words, which is in part aesthetic but is also said to represent the fact

that, on the one hand, we can describe God with words and worship God with

words, but, on the other hand, God is impossible to explain with language and

all description of God is imperfect.

_____

[Deanna]

> Using the language of

> mathematics AND other languages that humans discovered and/or invented, we

> can deduce all sorts of things. All of your education is for naught if you

> truly believe that, " ...logic (which is human and imperfect, and which, in

> any case, cannot itself lead to the understanding of anything)... " See my

> former professor's homepage for some great logic lesson powerpoint

> presentations.

____

[CHRIS]

Logic is used to perfectly deduce conclusions from premises, and thus enhance

our understanding, but it relies on some ultimate premise(s) in any

deduction. To comprehend the ultimate premise belongs to a field other than

logic.

The same is true of mathematics. Any number can be defined in relation to the

whole number, but the whole number cannot be arrived at through mathematic

equations, but must be comprehended and conceived of by some means other than

mathematical equation.

_____

[Deanna]

> If, as you say, you cannot understand the Trinity from logic, then how in

> the world can you claim that no " logical contradictions " exist in it?

_____

[CHRIS]

I said we cannot *fully* understand the Trinity through logic. We can apply

logic to it where logic is applicable, but logic is not applicable to the

Trinity in every aspect, nor is it applicable to anything else in all aspects.

We

can make logic concerning any given thing, such as a computer, but the

association we make with the word " computer " and the meaning of that word is an

association that is made through non-logical means. Or, we can speak logically

of

love, but cannot understand what it feels like to love, or be loved, and

cannot love, through logic.

Logic is a tool that helps increase our understanding of things and insofar

as it is applicable it is perfect, but it's applicability to any given thing is

not entire.

That's all I meant.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 5:05:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> [Deanna] Then it follows that all doctrines are imperfect including the

> doctrine of the Trinity, from what you claim following the beginning of

> the last comma above.

_____

[CHRIS] It follows that the doctrines are imperfect with respect to a full

and penetrating comprehension, but it does not follow that the doctrines are

imperfect in relation to the potential of a doctrine to be accurate.

_____

> [Deanna] Explain i, the imaginary number which is defined as the square

> root of negative one in relation to a whole number.

_____

[CHRIS] You already have.

______

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

[Chris]

>In Orthodox liturgical music, we have a two-part harmony of a melody and a

>single note that is held for periods of time (it shifts, at certain points, but

>it is held continuously), called the iso. The latter is traditionally sung

>without words, which is in part aesthetic but is also said to represent the

fact

>that, on the one hand, we can describe God with words and worship God with

>words, but, on the other hand, God is impossible to explain with language and

>all description of God is imperfect.

>

>

[Deanna] Then it follows that all doctrines are imperfect including the

doctrine of the Trinity, from what you claim following the beginning of

the last comma above.

>[CHRIS]

>

>Logic is used to perfectly deduce conclusions from premises, and thus enhance

>our understanding, but it relies on some ultimate premise(s) in any

>deduction. To comprehend the ultimate premise belongs to a field other than

logic.

>The same is true of mathematics. Any number can be defined in relation to the

>whole number, but the whole number cannot be arrived at through mathematic

>equations, but must be comprehended and conceived of by some means other than

>mathematical equation.

>

>

[Deanna] Explain i, the imaginary number which is defined as the square

root of negative one in relation to a whole number.

>[CHRIS]

>

>I said we cannot *fully* understand the Trinity through logic. We can apply

>logic to it where logic is applicable, but logic is not applicable to the

>Trinity in every aspect, nor is it applicable to anything else in all aspects.

We

>can make logic concerning any given thing, such as a computer, but the

>association we make with the word " computer " and the meaning of that word is an

>association that is made through non-logical means. Or, we can speak logically

of

>love, but cannot understand what it feels like to love, or be loved, and

>cannot love, through logic.

>

[Deanna] will you please catch me? I am sliding down your

slippery slope fallacy. ;-)

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >

> >

> >> [Deanna] Explain i, the imaginary number which is defined as the square

> >> root of negative one in relation to a whole number.

> >>

> >>

> >_____

> >

> >[CHRIS] You already have.

> >______

> >

> >

> [Deanna] Hey can we take this debate to nt_politics since no one

> else is joining in? I am just getting warmed up.

>

> And no I did not 'splain. Whole numbers, the set you used, are numbers

> greater than or equal to zero. Please explain i in relation to that

> set. I did not do it.

>

> Deanna

>

Whole numbers need not be greater than or equal to zero, though generally they

prefer it.

[Guest guest]

>

>

>> [Deanna] Explain i, the imaginary number which is defined as the square

>> root of negative one in relation to a whole number.

>>

>>

>_____

>

>[CHRIS] You already have.

>______

>

>

[Deanna] Hey can we take this debate to nt_politics since no one

else is joining in? I am just getting warmed up.

And no I did not 'splain. Whole numbers, the set you used, are numbers

greater than or equal to zero. Please explain i in relation to that

set. I did not do it.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>Whole numbers need not be greater than or equal to zero, though generally they

prefer it.

>

Integers, Real, counting, complex, irrational ... we get all types here!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >Whole numbers need not be greater than or equal to zero, though generally

they

> prefer it.

> >

> Integers, Real, counting, complex, irrational ... we get all types here!

>

> Deanna

>

Actually, I was under a misconception. I had a pretty strong math background,

didn't use it for a 'number' of years, and have resurrected it a bit...but I had

actually forgotten that, usually, whole numbers are used synonymously with

'integers greater than or equal to zero'. I had remembered simply that they were

integers.