Well Terry a battle of philosophy I’ll leave to others as I don’t have the time to take you on in the way that would be required.
VIOLATING the 3 Classic Laws of thought in order to become SPIRITUAL
by Terry 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Terry
Okay, I read what those three laws are... I do not know how you conclude that being spiritual is being in contradiction to the three laws. Can you give me an example?
Okay Tammy Whammy!
We start with the Law of Identity. A thing is what it is and not what it isn't. For something to have identity it must be verified by perception, abstraction, integration and identification through mesurement without contradiction with reality.
What is SPIRIT? Can it be registered on equipment, weighed, measurably quantified and compared with any known calibration? Or, is SPIRIT
asserted to be "real" and taken on mere acceptance?
REAL is real and (REAL) is (real). The brackets indicate metaphorical and beyond the practical.
Second law: non-contradictory. Jesus is man and god. Man is not god and god is not man. Yet, we have Jesus.
Third Law=The law of the excluded middle. Something is or isn't and not BOTH simultaneously. God is a non-caused cause who causes.
See?
-
Terry
Well Terry a battle of philosophy I’ll leave to others as I don’t have the time to take you on in the way that would be required.
It might help to think of this as ideas rather than philosophy.
Ideas contained in Mathematics can often be useful while simultaneously being abstract.
Useful means practical. Philosophy which is useful is interesting to me. When it is merely abstract I lose interest.
-
Terry
"Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason—or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses—or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality—or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty—or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent of your self-confidence—and of your success—will be different, according to which set of answers you accept." book: Philosophy--Who Needs it?
-
Terry
"The branch of philosophy that studies existence is metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies the nature of the universe as a whole. It tells men what kind of world they live in, and whether there is a supernatural dimension beyond it. It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux. It tells men whether the things they perceive by their senses and mind form a comprehensible reality, with which they can deal, or some kind of unreal appearance, which leaves them staring and helpless." Philosophy-Who Needs it?
-
Terry
BASICS:
The basic question is an either/or question: Does the universe exist independent of consciousness or BECAUSE OF consciousness?
If the univerise exists FIRST, that is called primacy of existence.
If consciousness existed FIRST, that is called primacy of consciousness.
Note: All philosophical inquiry is a war between these two premises.
If all conscious beings vanished would the universe still be there? That is primacy of existence.
If all conscious beings vanished and nothing would actually still exist, that is primacy of consciousness.
In the Christian POV, primacy of consciousness is held to be the number one fact upon which all other facts are built.
GOD is the primary.
In science, the material universe exists whether or not anything is conscious, MATERIAL existence is the primary.
SCIENCE SAYS:
consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which already exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward.
RELIGION SAYS: the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). THEREFORE, man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations received from another, superior consciousness).The failure to distinguish between these two is a make it-or break it encounter with either reality (true knowledge) or self-deception and delusion.
I.E. This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.
________________________________
A person's entire view of the world, of man, of purpose and of truth depends on which of these two principles he accepts and fosters.
In the case of Primacy of Consciousness, it is believed God creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim, He himself an uncaused cause. Man is a special product of this whim and possess value only in so far as he is useful in carrying out the will of his creator.
In the case of Primacy of Existence, man is the result of materials already in place acted upon by natural interactions, causes and effects. Man exists to master the physical universe only by means of his rational thinking.
-
tec
If we cannot identify the source of our EMOTION we cannot reasonably conclude the value triggering it is reasonable.
Example please.
We start with the Law of Identity. A thing is what it is and not what it isn't. For something to have identity it must be verified by perception, abstraction, integration and identification through mesurement without contradiction with reality.
Are all of those addendums part of the law of identity, or have you added them to the law of identity? (I am being sincere)
Second law: non-contradictory. Jesus is man and god. Man is not god and god is not man. Yet, we have Jesus.
This is what I read from the law of non-contradiction:
It states that something cannot be bothtrue and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.
Is that incorrect? Because if it is correct, then the above does not violate the second law. (think caterpillar and a butterfly)
(not that I am arguing that Christ is God... I am not a trinitarian; but perhaps the above would work the same in stating that He is man... and He is Holy Spirit... but not at the same time)
Third Law=The law of the excluded middle. Something is or isn't and not BOTH simultaneously. God is a non-caused cause who causes.
Okay, this is what I read on this law:
It says "Statements are either true or false." Or as have some put it, "A statement is true or its negation is true.” Some reject this law and assert that there is a third option; namely, that the truth or falsity of the statement can be unknown. But, it would seem that being unknown does not negate the proposition that the statement is either true or false. It just means its truth or falseness is not known.
So I do not know how God being THE cause.. who does the causING... breaks this law.
The statement that everything has a cause... would be breaking this law, if one also states that God does not have a cause.
Back to you, and this is interesting!
Peace,
tammy
-
Terry
This is what I read from the law of non-contradiction:
It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.
Is that incorrect? Because if it is correct, then the above does not violate the second law. (think caterpillar and a butterfly)
I've never seen a caterpillar which was a butterfly at the same time. Have you?
The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate effective application of the mind in order to weed out contradictions and arrive at clarity of understanding.
Do we really need to be told a thing isn't true while it is true?
Slippery people will try and finesse these matters to undermine the basic idea of anybody being able to know anything. That doesn't work.
The very act of saying something isn't true uses the law itself.
It says "Statements are either true or false." Or as have some put it, "A statement is true or its negation is true.” Some reject this law and assert that there is a third option; namely, that the truth or falsity of the statement can be unknown. But, it would seem that being unknown does not negate the proposition that the statement is either true or false. It just means its truth or falseness is not known.
So I do not know how God being THE cause.. who does the causING... breaks this law.
You missed the important part about God being the UN-caused.
God, if uncaused, violates the law.
We start with the Law of Identity. A thing is what it is and not what it isn't. For something to have identity it must be verified by perception, abstraction, integration and identification through mesurement without contradiction with reality.
Are all of those addendums part of the law of identity, or have you added them to the law of identity? (I am being sincere)
Actually, I under-explained. I should have said : "For something to have identity, WE must be ABLE to verify (that identity) by. . ."
-
tec
I've never seen a caterpillar which was a butterfly at the same time. Have you?
No, but you applied it to Christ being two different things... while these were not at the same time. That was my point.
The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate effective application of the mind in order to weed out contradictions and arrive at clarity of understanding.
Yep, I understood that.
Do we really need to be told a thing isn't true while it is true?
Slippery people will try and finesse these matters to undermine the basic idea of anybody being able to know anything. That doesn't work.
The very act of saying something isn't true uses the law itself.
Okay. But I am not sure what your point is in the above, lol.
You missed the important part about God being the UN-caused.
God, if uncaused, violates the law.
What law?
Do you mean the law of identity? As in God is being defined as being uncaused? (being defined as something he is not, rather than by something that he IS?) Just reverse that to the positive Terry, and God is defined as being eternal. The causER. I'm pretty sure that definition came first.
Actually, I under-explained. I should have said : "For something to have identity, WE must be ABLE to verify (that identity) by. . ."
Okay, but my question remains. Is your addendum here part of the first law, or did you add it TO the first law as you think it should mean?
Peace to you!
tammy
-
Terry
TEC asks:
Do you mean the law of identity? As in God is being defined as being uncaused? (being defined as something he is not, rather than by something that he IS?) Just reverse that to the positive Terry, and God is defined as being eternal. The causER. I'm pretty sure that definition came first.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.
Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.
Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”