God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're saying God is part of Jesus AND Jesus is part of God. By your own presumption of 'there are parts to the universe, therefore the universe is composed of those parts', both God and Jesus are composites. I'm assuming nothing, I'm applying your logic to your words.

O.

No I am not saying God has parts you are.

I grant you, parts can be complicated

The number 3 has one part ......3
But it also has 2 parts.......2 and 1
It also has 3 parts 1 plus 1 plus 1.

See......Different thinking required.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And there's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis too.

So a book is true because the book says it's true...

I mention it because Gordon thinks it's my assertion.

Why shouldn't I trust books?

[Outrider]

No I am not saying God has parts you are.

You said (a quote, as I understand it) - Jesus said I am in the father and the father is in me. He is a part of god the father, and god the father is a part of him.

I grant you, parts can be complicated

Not if you hold to a fairly simple logic, it's when you start trying to justify logically untenable and mystically self-contradictory hierarchies that it falls apart.

The number 3 has one part ......3
But it also has 2 parts.......2 and 1
It also has 3 parts 1 plus 1 plus 1.

Except that none of them are 'parts' when it's inconvenient - like when someone points out that sounds a lot like a polytheistic approach, when suddenly there are no 'parts', there's just one whole, except when it's not.

See......Different thinking required.

Not different thinking, the suspension of thinking. Special pleading for this example to defy a logic that everything else has to hold to because magic/spiritual/god/woo... delete as applicable.

O.

[Gordon]

I mention it because Gordon thinks it's my assertion.

In your #368 you said "No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t." That does read like assertion on your part, but then the whole Trinity notion is itself assertion.

Why shouldn't I trust books?

You can, to an extent, trust books provided that a) you've excluded the risks of lies and/or mistakes, and b) you aren't misunderstanding what you read or are misrepresenting the contents. I'd say, with the exception of perhaps some people and places, the NT is indistinguishable from fiction: so not worthy of trust, but perhaps worthy of sceptical curiosity.

[Sassy]

If,  and I do mean if, books are anything in the great scheme of things why the bible is one of the oldest books and has no limits on the KJV regarding copyrights and is still read by millions today?

Objective?  By the many definitions of 'objective' surely God and the supernatural does have many definitions.
God hasn't gone away. Millions still go to church and worship God. Christ still spoken about.
It doesn't make sense does it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said (a quote, as I understand it) - Jesus said I am in the father and the father is in me. He is a part of god the father, and god the father is a part of him.

Not if you hold to a fairly simple logic, it's when you start trying to justify logically untenable and mystically self-contradictory hierarchies that it falls apart.

Except that none of them are 'parts' when it's inconvenient - like when someone points out that sounds a lot like a polytheistic approach, when suddenly there are no 'parts', there's just one whole, except when it's not.

Not different thinking, the suspension of thinking. Special pleading for this example to defy a logic that everything else has to hold to because magic/spiritual/god/woo... delete as applicable.

O.

I'm just trying to point out that mathematical  reality works differently from physical reality.

The point is God is spirit and so there is no spatial aspect involved. Unlike your apparent conception of being in.

You I take it are both a son and a father and yet exist as one, so when I look at you, in one sense I am looking at both the father and the son.

That's an analogy not a homology, by the way.

[Gordon]

If,  and I do mean if, books are anything in the great scheme of things why the bible is one of the oldest books and has no limits on the KJV regarding copyrights and is still read by millions today?

Objective?  By the many definitions of 'objective' surely God and the supernatural does have many definitions.
God hasn't gone away. Millions still go to church and worship God. Christ still spoken about.
It doesn't make sense does it?

If you mean Christianity, then I agree: Christianity makes no sense whatsoever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I mention it because Gordon thinks it's my assertion.

It is.

Why shouldn't I trust books?

Because books can say anything. If we’re to trust some of them but not others then there have to be sound reasons for doing so. “Because the book says so” isn’t a sound reason - it’s just an expression of blind faith.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In your #368 you said "No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t." That does read like assertion on your part, but then the whole Trinity notion is itself assertion.

The trinity is a philosophical concept too. Gordon, So not to consider it is to be anti philosophical though I grant you that is itself a time honoured Scottish philosophical position

[Gordon]

The trinity is a philosophical concept too. Gordon, So not to consider it is to be anti philosophical though I grant you that is itself a time honoured Scottish philosophical position

You could argue the same for, say, the Ontological argument - but whether you call it theology or philosophy, it's still fallacious nonsense. I don't think that I am Scottish really all that relevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The trinity is a philosophical concept too. Gordon, So not to consider it is to be anti philosophical though I grant you that is itself a time honoured Scottish philosophical position

Only if you think one shape that's also a square, a circle and a triangle is also a "philosophical concept".

Any news on how you plan to escape the fallacy of composition re "the universe consists of lots of bits caused by other bits, therefore the universe itself must also be caused by something else"? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad
Any news on how you plan to escape the fallacy of composition re "the universe consists of lots of bits caused by other bits, therefore the universe itself must also be caused by something else"?

Any chance of you spotting the difference between that
and The universe consists of bits and is therefore contingent on those bits?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Any chance of you spotting the difference between that
and The universe consists of bits and is therefore contingent on those bits?

That's not your assertion though. Your assertion is that, because the universe consists of lots of contingent parts, thus the universe as a whole must be contingent on something other than itself.

That's you fallacy of composition. Do you intend to continue to rely on it, or do you have an argument to escape it?   

[Outrider]

I'm just trying to point out that mathematical  reality works differently from physical reality.

No, it doesn't. In set theory, if A is a subset of B (I am in the Father) then B can't also be a subset of A (the father is in me). Mathematically it's still nonsense.

The point is God is spirit and so there is no spatial aspect involved.

And there's the special pleading. This is 'Spirit', and therefore logic need not apply... either it's a rule, or it's not. If you're going to suspend the rules arbitrarily to make your case, your case is as watertight as paper colander in a shredder.

Unlike your apparent conception of being in.

If you want to try to redefine 'in' to further compound the bullshit, fire away, fallacy topping to the special pleading cupcake.

You I take it are both a son and a father and yet exist as one, so when I look at you, in one sense I am looking at both the father and the son.

You appear to be conflating definite and indefinite articles, there - are you suggesting that Jesus is, or is in, 'a' father, or 'the father'? One of those is heresy, one of them is logically incoherent.

That's an analogy not a homology, by the way.

I was under the impression this was accepted Christian doctrine, but if you want to try to handwave it away now with 'but I didn't really MEAN that'... then why are you contributing it to a discussion where we're trying to establish some sort of meaning?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's not your assertion though.

It is I've just asserted it.

So being a composite in it's own right, We have to ask why it's got this number of components and not that number as well as why it's got these components and not another, why this physics and not another physics, why not all energy only some of it. In other words, what are all these things contingent on? Or to sum up, what is it inor about the universe that is not contingent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it doesn't. In set theory, if A is a subset of B (I am in the Father) then B can't also be a subset of A (the father is in me). Mathematically it's still nonsense.

And there's the special pleading. This is 'Spirit', and therefore logic need not apply... either it's a rule, or it's not. If you're going to suspend the rules arbitrarily to make your case, your case is as watertight as paper colander in a shredder.

If you want to try to redefine 'in' to further compound the bullshit, fire away, fallacy topping to the special pleading cupcake.

You appear to be conflating definite and indefinite articles, there - are you suggesting that Jesus is, or is in, 'a' father, or 'the father'? One of those is heresy, one of them is logically incoherent.

I was under the impression this was accepted Christian doctrine, but if you want to try to handwave it away now with 'but I didn't really MEAN that'... then why are you contributing it to a discussion where we're trying to establish some sort of meaning?

O.

Is 3 one entity or 3? Or 2, since 2 plus 1 equals 3?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is I've just asserted it.

So being a composite in it's own right, We have to ask why it's got this number of components and not that number as well as why it's got these components and not another, why this physics and not another physics, why not all energy only some of it. In other words, what are all these things contingent on? Or to sum up, what is it inor about the universe that is not contingent?

No we haven’t. All we have to ask is why you think the fact that the universe has contingent parts means the universe itself must be contingent on something else. That’s your fallacy of composition. Deal with it or not, but your endless distractions and prevarications don’t change the fact of it.     

[Outrider]

Is 3 one entity or 3? Or 2, since 2 plus 1 equals 3?

I've no idea, the story changes every time it's told. Are there three of them, or one of them? Is one of them part of another or vice versa? Or are they both part of something else?

Or are you going to try and claim all of the above on a spiritual exemption from logic and set theory, but then clamp hard on the absolute necessity of irrefutable knowledge for any other possibility?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no idea,

I think we must give precedency to Jesus statement that the Son and the father are one. Since the members of the trinity have no separate existence. God is not spatial. So at the end of the day, the term 'being in' can only be analogous.
I'm not sure your statements on set theory also conclude the matter. In as much as some of the Father can be in son and visa versa, in an indivisible all of the Father is in the son and all of the son is in the father and therefore they are one.but that can only be analogous. So whether all that can be extended to physical parts which have their own independent existence I'm not sure.

[jeremyp]

There would be no cells without the body?

Correct. Your brain cells, for example, require the body to supply them with nutrients and oxygen. If that supply is cut off, they will all die within about a minute.

[jeremyp]

No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.

No. You are the one who keeps banging on about the Trinity.

Notwithstanding that Jesus was "fully human" and thus a composite of cells. Not only is God a composite but so is one of its components.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we must give precedency to Jesus statement that the Son and the father are one.

Aside from your blind faith about that, why?

[jeremyp]

I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely

John10:30

What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.

So the father has at least one hand. That makes him a composite entity too.

and

John 14:11.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

This is complete nonsense. How can two things be inside each other? Furthermore, if one thing is inside the other thing, the outer thing is a composite entity.

Then there's the problem of Jesus going to something that is inside of him - or, if outside of him, going to something when he is already there.

Vlad, how an you read this and think it is anything except a pile of dingos' kidneys?

[jeremyp]

I'm just trying to point out that mathematical  reality works differently from physical reality.

God is just a mathematical abstraction. Got it.

The point is God is spirit and so there is no spatial aspect involved. Unlike your apparent conception of being in.

Jesus said he was inside God. That implies a spatial aspect.

[ekim]

I've no idea, the story changes every time it's told. Are there three of them, or one of them? Is one of them part of another or vice versa? Or are they both part of something else?

Or are you going to try and claim all of the above on a spiritual exemption from logic and set theory, but then clamp hard on the absolute necessity of irrefutable knowledge for any other possibility?

O.

The Trinity is probably an analogy to try to describe the relationship of the divine and the human.  The Hebrew 'neshama' and Greek 'psyche' (soul) means breath and the Hebrew 'ruwach' and Latin 'spiritus' means air.  The divine father perhaps represents the total source of the air, the son represents the air within the human form and the Holy Spirit represents the totality of the air itself.  A similar analogy might be God the Ocean, God the Wave and God the Water.