The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: hmm.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I understand (see in situ)


"I would say that we are as different in substance from God than dark is to light or gold is to tin. I misstated my question by not addressing the issue of substance, as opposed to merely characteristics. Blue and square are merely characteristics of the same object and do not address the substance or essence of the thing. A better framed question would be "can something be fully gold and fully tin at the same time, logically?""My point being all along that the use of logic does not satisfactorily explain the concept of the trinity with our limited knowledge of the matter. In fact, to our human minds, it is not logical"

How did you come to the conclusion that the relationship between tin & gold is comparable to the substance of man & God? This is where I would be hesitant to make the assumptions required to assert the paradox. What do we know about the substance of either man or God to be able to say if they are mutually exclusive?

First, I'd point out that the bible speaks of God in terms of "spirit" rather than physical material:

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Gen_1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Can you really say that the distinction between man, and God(spirit) is comparable to the arrangement of atoms in 2 kinds of physical metals? Normally, if there appears to be a contradiction, and a way to harmonize them appears, the contradiction is disproven. And the mere existence of Jesus as both God and man seems to be a harmonization of the alleged contradiction. But since there is only one clear example of this(this example of Jesus as part of the trinity) which is the subject of the question, it's hard to address it from either side without begging the question. If you 'merely assume' that the substance of man and God are mutually exclusive, you beg the question of whether or not there is a contradiction, but if you 'merely assume' that they are compatible you'd also beg the question. But those appear to be the only two options when nobody knows the details of the things in question. But at least in assuming that there is no contradiction, one would be following the principle of charity. But I don't think those are the only two options, and I don't limit my view to a 'mere assumption' that the substances are in someway logically compatible. The reason I reject the concept of contradiction here is because of the relationship between truth and logic, and what the Bible says about God's relationship to truth.

"I do not disagree with you that the God of the Bible is a consistent and logical being, my only point of contention is in the assertion that everything He does must make logical sense to humans for Him to be so. Thanks for taking the time to respond! I appreciate you sharing your views... :)"

We're pretty close to agreement. But I see a big difference between something being logical and something making sense to us. If we are unable to make sense of something, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is illogical. Logic is not man's understanding, logic is a system of truth values, truth values which may or may not be recognizable to us. It could be that we just don't understand the premises enough to consider the argument accurately(which is what I think you were getting at). In that situation, I think that saying there is a contradiction is not justified. At best you should say you just don't understand it enough to say whether or not it's logical.

Not knowing how a computer works does not make a computer illogical. Computers are based on logic. When you start getting into subjects like 'fuzzy logic' (which might show engineers the appearance of paradoxes) that's not what I'm talking about.. that has more to do with the physical world than the truth values I'm speaking of.