Debating Catholicism

[shnoodlec.]

You're welcome,Poundy, ma'am.

Pound Foolish is a boy.

[GratiaDei]

It's a joke because PF originally thought Helios was a boy, so now he calls her sir, and Helios calls him ma'am.

[Helios]

Yup, it's a joke.

[GratiaDei]

I'm finally starting to understand a few of the inside jokes on here. Thank goodness. I thought I would just be eternally confused.

[Eleventh Doctor]

There you are. Those seem to be the two arguments on which the foundation of your premise rests. If man's lack of a full explanation for God and His Son means nothing, or if the divine revelation to which your beliefs trace themselves is false, down it falls.

Write me a true and valid logical formula that proves Christ's nature.

[Helios]

I'm finally starting to understand a few of the inside jokes on here. Thank goodness. I thought I would just be eternally confused.

Lol, you and me both, Gratia.

[Pound Foolish]

That's a rather odd statement, considering you have not shown my earlier formula to be invalid. Further, I already admitted have no interest in making this conversation rest on formulas as I am unskilled at them. Is that unreasonable?
Kindly be gracious enough to refute the assertions. This conversation will get nowhere if you ignore me like this. If you do, either you will have to disprove the formula already provided, or I shall simply have to press the point out that, unless you disprove the formula, we must assume it is valid.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Since we are talking about logical formulas it makes no sense for you to refuse to provide valid ones. If you don't know about them then how can you insist that you are right?

Here is your logical formula

1. Truth is what is.

2. God is.

3. If God is above logic, He is only above logic that is.

That is not valid, here is an example of a logically valid and sound formula.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

From a more basic viewpoint.

All P are Q.
S is a P.
Therefore, S is a Q.

Use the formula I have provided and show me how Christ's two natures fit into a logical formula. Now do remember that I have conceded that Christ, God, and the universe are logical using the definition that they fit into a reasonable and sound belief of the nature of our objective universe. You are arguing that God fits into the first two definitions I gave. I am more than willing to concede the third definition to you.

[Pound Foolish]

No, you are talking about logical formulas, I used one briefly as an aside, and you have refused to talk of anything else although my other arguments are the ones I feel are strong.
I did not insist the formula is right. In fact, I previously said we would simply ignore it.

In other words, you are, if I may use the terminology, harping on this formula when I already said it wasn't my point, and you are trying to defeat the formula as if it were my point, as if in defeating it you would prove something.

As to your formula, it's interesting, but I'm not sure how to use it to explain Christ. Unless you're certain that is relevant to this discussion, that is, the discussion of your premise that God is above logic vs. my premise that God is not above logic but cannot be fully explained by our finite minds (not that we can fully explain Christ) then I'll just leave it at that.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Are we in agreement that it is the third definition of logic you are talking about when you say that God is not above logic? Or are you saying that God could fit into a logical formula like I have provided?

I understand you've been talking about the third definition but I have always meant the first definition. That is what our disagreement rose from.

[Pound Foolish]

No, God is not above

Definition 1: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Definition 2: The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study

However, we cannot fully explain God, I've granted that time and time again. So no. No logical formula on earth could ever put God' nature in a nutshell, of course! Perhaps one exists,(perhaps it's doubtful) but we mortals aren't ever going to just going to work it out on a piece of sketch paper.
My formula was just applying a formula to God, not summing all of Him up. And incidentally, though you said again the formula was flawed, you still never said how, you just gave an example of a valid formula. And waitasec, I made it clear earlier that I assumed by "logical formula" you meant the formula I tried to make: "A cannot be greater than A." Yet you give the mere list I made of things that YOU HAD ALREADY GRANTED AS TRUE as my formula!? That wasn't a formula! Can we please forget the formula thing already, this conversation just keeps getting more confusing.
Now will you refute my points about divine revelation and the limited knowledge of humanity or not?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Your formula was flawed because it did not follow the principle of All P are Q. S is a P. Therefore, S is a Q. Or another valid form. A cannot be greater than A is not a valid formula, that's just the case. You can't just throw two letters with some logic sounding words in between, it has to follow a valid formula. You admit you don't know much about logical formulas yet you insist that God is not above them, maybe learn about them before you say that. Now you're talking about a different kind of logic and I've made it clear I admit that according to your definition of logic you are correct. But you refuse to concede that God is not above my definition, an area you know nothing about. Can't you even concede you might be wrong in an area you know nothing about? I

a) There are many things humanity cannot explain. Love, for example.

refutation: Man cannot fully explain atoms but they are not above man, but yes indeed, humankind can explain little of the world or theology, let alone God. What of it?
Logic and reason evolve as we discover new truths through divine revelation and new theologians. It's not as if all theological knowledge has been handed to us.
Let's look at the ultimate, basic, unquestionable logic, the very essence of reason and law: mathematics. Yes, as I said, I am unskilled in this area myself. (I am still struggling through Algebra 1.) That aside, consider the huge advances that are made in it. For centuries, we did not even have the concept of zero. As for negative numbers, they are practically a new development. We make new discoveries even about supposed absolutes. Things we are taught since childhood. Yet, you claim that because we cannot fully explain God himself, who is so incredibly more complicated than math, there must be no logical answer!

I am arguing that what we understand of Christ, that He has two natures fully divine and fully human, cannot fit into a logical formula, nothing more. I am not arguing that it is somehow outside the objective reality of our existence. If I attempted to fit Christ's nature into a logical formula it would not be true. God is not mortal. Christ is God. Christ was not mortal. This is logically valid but is not true. You also say we have not been handed all theological knowledge but we have been handed the faith once and for always, things about the nature of Christ are not hidden from us. The Councils of the Early Church did not create the theology about the nature of Christ they simply confirmed what Christ and the Apostles had taught.

b) The truth of God's nature was divinely revealed. Yes, not all divine revelation is entirely reliable, but the multitudes of the past church witness to the truth of the revelation.

refutation: Well, a billion people witness against it.

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to the masses. This is not a refutation.

[Pound Foolish]

Before I follow up on your excellent points, may I please ask for clarity's sake what exactly you mean by investigating inference, isn't that what we're doing now? Proving truths from inference doesn't have to involve logical formulas, all P are Q and all, does it? If I say, "You have chocolate on your mouth, therefore you ate chocolate" aren't I using inference?

[Eleventh Doctor]

You can use a less formal version of inference but it could still be put into a formal formula and be valid and true.

[Pound Foolish]

Thank you for explaining. Alright, then, obviously what I said wasn't a formula properly speaking at all. I wasn't trying to make a formula, you merely called it one, so I agreed to call it that, and now you tell me it wasn't one to begin with. So it was only a manner of speaking, my attempt at communicating. So why we are giving it such attention as a failed formula rather than a manner of speaking is rather confusing.
I frankly have no idea how I would make one with the explanation you provide. I will try, but please don't make an issue out of it. If it is still no good, then please tell me. However, do not press the point. I am only trying to make a valid formula as you desire one. I still don't know why only that formula and principle that you provided is valid in this instance, but I shall assume you are right and attempt to use it.

If God is truth which we shall call T, then all logical truth, L, is equal to T.

Perhaps that works and perhaps it doesn't. I shall be genuinely interested in your reply. However, you are trying to teach me this matter of logical formulas and, unfortunately, I simply need a longer and very different lesson. Further, while I am interested in reading more on logic and started by getting a book on Socratic philosophy, rather than speeding this discussion to its conclusion, this discussion of formulas has hindered it a great deal. How could it not, when you are trying to have me use a method of discussion I have already made clear I am unused to?
So I insist, rather than slowing this discussion unnecessarily, we return to the casually normal mode of debate and forget the "formal" formulas as you call them.

And of course my formula may be wrong, if it is a formula at all, or the manner of speaking, rather, may be poor. But what do you mean I should concede I may be wrong? I already admitted maybe the formula as you call it is likely wrong, more than once. What's your point? I already pointed out that the "formula" wasn't the main point of that post but just an aside. If you remove it, the argument still makes sense.

Now then. I realize you are not arguing that Jesus' nature is outside objective reality. However,you are arguing that God is above definition 1 and 2. That Jesus could not be explained by logic or logical formulas and that he is above the methods of reasoning we call logic. We agree He is above the third. On reflection, perhaps we agree on the second as well, since we cannot understand all about God through our reason. However, the reality is, though we cannot find explanations through our reason, reason and logic still applies in those vagaries if only we could find out how, which we can't because God is infinite and we have finite minds and understanding. That seems to be where we differ, definitions one and two.

You think that because we have been given all the knowledge of God's nature we shall have on earth we have all there is? Surely not. So you mean that we have all logical knowledge of God there is? How does that follow?

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to the masses. This is not a refutation

You said we know God is above logic through divine revelation, and the only proof you provided that the revelation is legitimate is that both sides of the church once believed this idea. Well, that's essentially an appeal to the masses, is it not?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I agree to stop asking you to create a formula. However I was not asking you to concede that your formula was incorrect, I was asking for you to say that maybe, since you have no idea what a formula is, you are wrong about God not being above logical formulas. You continue to insist that God is above definition one but you don't even know what definition one looks like.

I agree our disagreement lies in definition 1 and 2, areas that you have acknowledge you know next to nothing about. So how can you claim God is above them when you know next to nothing about them?

So even though we can't and I quote find explanations through reason we can still find explanations through reason? Something cannot be both true and not true.

So you think we have been gaining new knowledge of God? Can you give me an example of new knowledge of God?

True I did appeal to the Church. It seems like we believe what we believe because of our respective Traditions.

[Pound Foolish]

Yes, I know nothing about formulas but I've shown some little ability to debate using informal logic, I hope. See here, you said that formulas are formal logic. If it is indeed only that they are a more sophisticated form of it, then saying I should admit God is not above formulas because I know only about informal arguing is like saying I should admit Michelangelo is above Monet because I know about painting and not about sculpture.

I have not acknowledged I know next to nothing about them, I have acknowledged I know next to nothing about formulas. And?

This is hard to express. But I more or less did earlier. I made a distinction between human knowledge and actual logic to Gratia which I've mentioned a few times, but you have never directly said what the difference is in your opinion. What is it? Wouldn't you agree that something can be logically true without it being logically proven? So if God is purely logical, it wouldn't matter whether we knew all the logical truths about Him, would it? Yet you seem to talk as if the two are connected.You think that because we have been given all the knowledge of God's nature we shall have on earth we have all there is? Surely not. So you mean that we have all logical knowledge of God there is? How does that follow?
I made a key remark on the subject in my last post you have not answered.

You think that because we have been given all the knowledge of God's nature we shall have on earth we have all there is? Surely not. So you mean that we have all logical knowledge of God there is? How does that follow? (In other words, simply because we have all logical knowledge of God that we shall have on this earth, that does not prove that there is not more.)

You say you appealed to" the church" and say I appealed to the masses? Aren't the masses I appealed to my church?

In any case, the idea the revelation is witnessed to by the church fails either way. If that is true, then Catholicism's ideas on the subject must be true rather than yours. If false, then that leaves you without a verification for the revelation.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Fine, whatever, I drop the point about logical formulas until such time you get more information about them.

I would argue that something must be logically provable to be logically true. There are logical truths we have not proved but still exist. I would argue however that we cannot logically prove logical truths about God because logical proofs operate within the normatives of our universe and miracles and the like are outside that normative, we can't prove miracles through science they are matters of faith so thus we can't use logical means to prove them.

True there could be more knowledge of God but as I've said before that knowledge is in the area of definition 3, the objective truth about our reality. Obviously God is part of that but definition 1 and 2 are not, they deal precisely with human knowledge on this earth and thus God is above them. I feel like we actually agree but we're just not communicating it.

Why are Catholicism's ideas truer than my Churches?

[Pound Foolish]

Well... I realize I'm unintentionally trying your nerves Good Doctor, but really. Anyhow, if you still have reason to believe I should concede God is above formulas, fine, for the time being, I can say God may be above formulas. After I made that post, upon reflection it seems somewhat reasonable.

A good refutation, but but you didn't address one of the key points. God is infinite, we are not. Isn't to say our minds cannot logically explain him means there is not logical explanations a'toll like saying because an ant can't possibly fully understand everything about a tree a tree is not logical?

Of course we can't prove miracles through science. One can in practice prove the existence of specific miracles, such as Our Lady of Guadalupe, but not explain why they are there in the first place.
Let's take this step by step. Is science the rule of what always happens or what nearly always happens? For instance, science says the earth revolves around the sun. But the sun could burn out tomorrow, couldn't it? In that case, that rule and many others would no longer apply, correct?

It would be lovely if we agree, and would not render our discourse a waste of time in relation to me as I have been made to think of many things in different fashion. However, while all correctly logical truth fits indeed into objective reality, you don't seem to agree that God isn't above the way of objective reality, that he in fact never steps over the rules of objective reality but uses them.

To answer your question, Catholicism's views are better than your church's because they are true, but that's not the point.
You pointed out I was appealing to the masses. But you were essentially doing the same. It is not a matter of which is "truer" in this way of thinking, but of who's church is of greater numbers. After all, if only one person were Eastern Orthodox and one Catholic in the time you describe in which we agreed on God's nature, would that be very impressive? No, you say the witnesses to the "truth" of God's being above logic are significant because of their numbers.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I agree, we are finite and God is infinite. Definition 1 and 2 are finite as well, God cannot be contained by them He is above them because definition 1 and 2 are about nature, God is supernatural. He is however objectively real, definition 3, we are in agreement that God is not above definition 3.

If the sun burnt out we would still rotate around it we just wouldn't get the light But I get your meaning. Science is the rule of what has been probable to occur in the past. But if we allowed for every conceivable possibility then logic, definition 1 and 2, wouldn't work. If that's how logic worked then I could say "A ball when dropped goes up into the sky until it disappears into space." And have it be logical since that "could" happen tomorrow. Definition 1 and 2 are about normatives, otherwise we can't prove anything. Sure the sky is blue this second but what about the next second?

I would say that God is obviously part of our objective reality, as I've said I agree that God is not above definition 3, but I've said that miracles are not normative and do not operate according to normal principals. When God cures someone of cancer that is not normative, cancer multiplies and kills you it does not suddenly disappear, normally.

No, I wasn't arguing numbers. And of course I would argue my Church is true