Re: Trinty continued
- From: "ghali" <ghaliadi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jan 2006 12:28:19 -0800
>It doesn't! The only point of the water analogy was help you understand
>how it is possible for three things to be united within one object.
Well if does not differentiate between the two senses of divinity i.e.
Jesus is FULLY God and Jesus is a PART of God, then it does not
explain the difference between polytheism and monothesim. A bit of a
bummer don't you think?
>What was at issue here was my analogy claiming that the mass of water
>as a whole represents the Godhead, while the portions of that mass
>represent the Persons which are united within it.
Again Ice is H2O Water is H2O and Steam is H2O, yet they are made of
the same stuff. Where is the unity here? Krishna is Divine, Ali Baba is
Divine, and Godfrey is Divine but yet they all hold the same
properties. It does not follow from the premise
A-Three entities have some properties that are the same ( this what the
analogy explains)
to
B- Three entities are united!
Basic Logic Denis! Come on!
>Forget steam and ice for a moment. The issue was of a single mass, and
parts of that mass being united within that mass,
But that mass is either Steam, water or Ice. Strange to say that two
persons are united in one person! That is not the trinity Denis. Look
Denis, the single mass is no single mass but just a set of all members
who have the property H2O.
>Right, but we can conceptually divinethe drop into three parts, and
>note that the parts are united within the drop, made up of the same
'>stuff' as the drop, and not identical to the drop! That was the point
>of the analogy.
This is getting stranger and stranger. You are really getting into
quick sand here. We have a drop that has parts. Ok! The Drop water has
the part H2O. Ok. H2O as a single molecule is not identical to water.
OK! But how in the world does this explain the trinity? I think you are
still arguing with Alpha Ghali in the Dajjalic netherland who holds
onto the crazy premise
THE PART IS IDENTICAL TO THE WHOLE
LOL!!
>It wasn't meant to do so!
But it needs to do so Denis! That is my point!
> we could imagine a mass of
>divine pixie dust, and the three parts each have their own center of
>consciousness. The mass as a whole is God.
Ok Lets talk pixie dust, Jesus has a centre of Consciousness and is
made of pixie dust. The Father has a centre of consciousness and is
made of pixie dust. The Holy spirit is made of pixie dust and has a
centre of consciousness. From that information ALONE it does not follow
they are united in one being. You need additional information, which
includes the the following.
These entities are united into one being or mass called God
The analogy does not provide you this additional premise. You thought
it did. You must cross your t's and dot your i's here.
So then on your understanding there is one lump of "pixie dust" or
"glue" that unites them. You didn't like glue but your ok with pixie
dust??! Strange.
Now the crucial question Denis. What is this pixie stuff when it comes
to the the trinity?
What attribute does the pixie stuff correspond to?
Now on Craigs view we have pixie stuff as substance or being. On your
view we have pixie stuff as ???? Do you want me to get Peter Pan to
help you?
..
>How does this ridiculous objection still stand?
Se above for my ridiculous reasoning!
>A mass of water can
>absolutely be a specific object (i.e. a drop falling through the air is
>a finite mass of water, and is a specific object, which we refer to as
>'that drop' or 'the drop', et cetera).
Are you a secret muslim spy? That is my point. God as a WHOLE is no
SPECIFIC MODE OR SPECIFIC DROP! The drop when it is a specific object
is in only one mode. Yet God as a whole surely is a specific object as
well! But he is trimodal ESSENTIALLY!
>The analogy explained monotheism vis a vis polytheism in that it was
>noted that the parts are not gods by themselves, while the mass as a
>whole is the only thing that bears the prediate of being as god or
>deity. Hence there is only one god, thus Monotheism.
I repeat "So you without realising it have shown that this model can
explain both and therefore none!"
>Nonetheless, if it were such a case that your eyebrow was conscious,....
That is a valid point, I agree that different attributes have different
properties. Obvious! Sheesh! It just seems strange to think that Jesus
has ESSENTIALLY an independent will from the father. Yet he is the same
substance. This substance seems to be quite limited. For can the
substance allow the father to dominate the son? No you would say. But
why? It is not a logical contradiction. On your view after all it is
consistent to have 4, 5, 6 persons and so on. Why not this additional
detail.
But now we have problems. Remember God can only be "limited" by Logic.
Here we have an additional worry. God is no longer limited ONLY by
Logic. This a version of the boulder that is to heavy to lift which is
lethal.
Think of it this way
Boulder to heavy to lift implies God is Omnipotent and not Omnipotent
Jesus is subservient to the Father implies what contradiction Denis?
Remember you need to have essential attributes of God that contradict.
ALL UNDERSTANDINGS OF GOD
need the usual Omni's.
That is another issue which is a different argument all together
Ghali
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Your moment of Zen - brought to you by OBL
- Next by Date: Re: Two peas in a pod
- Previous by thread: NJ: TEEN CHARGED IN PATERSON STUDENT'S STABBING
- Next by thread: NICHE BANKS FIND GROWTH IN MUSLIM MARKET
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
