Open Theism Stirs Controversy on College Campuses

[STONE]

Originally posted by godrulz

Keep researching. There is a philosophical flaw to the riddle and a cogent answer (I just cannot spout it off the top of my head).

There have been several attempts and claims to solve this dillema. All are easily refuted.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

All the 1's are equal and uniform in the above logical sentence. Therefore your conclusion is flawed.

that is an assumption on your part. the 1's on the left side do not have to be in the same relation to the 1 on the right side. for example, 1 (water) + 1 (steam) + 1 (ice) = 1 (element).

If you are implying this because 3 parts equal one whole, you would be wrong also because one whole (set) is a distinct entity from it's parts (members).

see example above.

 

[jjjg]

You are on the right path, Stone. See my response in apparent self-contradicton of God thread.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

because it's still a finite distance.

We see movement across finite distances every day. Though this is true one must still traverse an infinite number of smaller distances one by one. This is undeniable.
It is logically impossible to traverse one by one that number of pieces, for the number of pieces one must traverse are in-finite.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
that is an assumption on your part. the 1's on the left side do not have to be in the same relation to the 1 on the right side. for example, 1 (water) + 1 (steam) + 1 (ice) = 1 (element).
see example above.

Your argument doesn't hold...water.
You are saying here that water, ice, and steam are all different forms of water.
If one added 1 amount(member) of water, 1 amount(member) of steam, and 1 amount(member) of ice, one would have an entirely different amount(set) of water.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by jjjg

You are on the right path, Stone. See my response in apparent self-contradicton of God thread.

Can you provide a link?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by STONE

There have been several attempts and claims to solve this dillema. All are easily refuted.

They are only refuted if you play silly head games. It is true that there is a difference between a finite distance and an infinite one. This is self-evident. Your deliberations are similar to the questions about how can I prove I exist. Philosophy sometimes has nothing better to do than waste time pondering the obvious.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by godrulz
They are only refuted if you play silly head games. It is true that there is a difference between a finite distance and an infinite one. This is self-evident.

The "head game" is called logic, a created and ultimately faulty characteristic to define God by.
God is not limited by logic, but only by His own will.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by STONE

The "head game" is called logic, a created and ultimately faulty characteristic to define God by.
God is not limited by logic, but only by His own will.

There is a difference between sound, true logic and pseudo-logic/ramblings.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

We see movement across finite distances every day. Though this is true one must still traverse an infinite number of smaller distances one by one. This is undeniable.
It is logically impossible to traverse one by one that number of pieces, for the number of pieces one must traverse are in-finite.

is counting to 1 also impossible stone? since there are an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

Your argument doesn't hold...water.
You are saying here that water, ice, and steam are all different forms of water.
If one added 1 amount(member) of water, 1 amount(member) of steam, and 1 amount(member) of ice, one would have an entirely different amount(set) of water.

if i have ice, steam and water before me, how many elements are there? just one. similarly there are 3 persons in the trinity, and yet just one God.

another example would be space. there is length, width and heighth, and yet space is just one thing.

 

[servent101]

Logic and speculation cannot compete with observation - We can look to understand through observation - thus we can understand by shared understanding of observations, combined with logic, reason, and sensibility.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by jjjg
You are on the right path, Stone. See my response in apparent self-contradicton of God thread.

Reason and logic are necessary for knowledge, study, discernment, and decision. Protestants are blessed to use their faculties and God given gifts. But there is a time to lay those faculties down in faith at the feet of Him who created them; not at the feet of corrupt man.
Though man can help teach and support us, we should test every spirit...whether it be of God. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by godrulz

There is a difference between sound, true logic and pseudo-logic/ramblings.

In my youth all I did was study scripture, logic and play chess.
I believed logic and reason were how to know God. After discovering the weaknesses in logic I tried to find and create solutions to the many paradoxes and contradictions inherent in it.
I was sure logic and reasoning process must be perfect, and there was simply some solution to be found. This was simply denial. The more one studies and seeks solutions to true logical contradiction, the more one realizes the only soultion to them is band-aids and work arounds. True solutions don't exist for true paradoxes, except that God is the only thing truly perfect in existence.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

is counting to 1 also impossible stone? since there are an infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1?

To count one only needs to say one number after the other; there is no distance to traverse.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

To count one only needs to say one number after the other; there is no distance to traverse.

but it is still jumping over the infinite amount of numbers that exist is it not? don't you have to go first through every number that exists between 0 and 1 in order to get to 1?

and again, for movement, there is still only a finite distance, not an infinite one. it doesn't matter that one can divide that finite measurement into infinitely smaller amounts through which one has passed. it does not render the movement impossible.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

but it is still jumping over the infinite amount of numbers that exist is it not? don't you have to go first through every number that exists between 0 and 1 in order to get to 1?

and again, for movement, there is still only a finite distance, not an infinite one. it doesn't matter that one can divide that finite measurement into infinitely smaller amounts through which one has passed. it does not render the movement impossible.

There is a parallel no doubt, however here is a main difference:
In counting I can say one, and then two. On a number line you would have a case.

In movement even if the entire distance in front of you is objectively finite, as you are relating, that doesn't change the fact that one must pass through an infinite number of divided distances one by one.
Do you deny one must pass through an infinite number of divided distances one by one?

(I will relate how movement altogether is logically impossible later.)

 

[STONE]

Here is another question for OV'ers:

Does the peace of God pass all understanding???

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

There is a parallel no doubt, however here is a main difference:
In counting I can say one, and then two. On a number line you would have a case.

on a number line, yes.

In movement even if the entire distance in front of you is objectively finite, as you are relating, that doesn't change the fact that one must pass through an infinite number of divided distances one by one.

would that not make the distance infinite?

Do you deny one must pass through an infinite number of divided distances one by one?

for the sake of argument, i'll say i deny it. why would one have to travel an infinite number of divided distances in order to get to a finite distance?

(I will relate how movement altogether is logically impossible later.)

that'd be a first to me, i look forward to it.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
for the sake of argument, i'll say i deny it. why would one have to travel an infinite number of divided distances in order to get to a finite distance?

Honest answers would be preferable to answers for the sake of argument.

If one is to complete (traverse) a finite distance, must one first complete half that distance?