The law of non-contradiction, simply stated, says that
logical contradictions cannot exist.
The law of non-contradiction is more powerful than God.
It prevents Him from making a rock too heavy for Him to lift.
It prevents Him from bringing both an unstoppable force and
an impassable barrier into existence.
It is his watchdog. It is his supervisor. God can't do anything
without first checking with the logical law of non-contradiction
to make sure that law says it is OK.
Am I right or wrong?
Dr. S
Yesterday, a high-profile Christian member brought two other high-profile Christian members' salvation into question, saying he doubted they would be saved and that he was not comfortable having them as brothers in Christ. He justified this by saying that their interpretation of the Bible and their subsequent behavior did not match his, the one true interpretation.
Inspired by this, I am going to start telling people they are going to hell when I find logical contradictions in their arguments or beliefs. After all, the law of non-contradiction is superior to God, and if violation of God's law justifies eternal damnation, then surely violation of the law of non-contradiction must as well. Where I would typically offer the courtesy of a logical explanation exposing the contradiciton in one's position, I will now experiment with bypassing that altogether and simply announcing that my opponent will burn in hell unless he repents and eradicates the inconsistencies in his position.
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'll save you some grief you will no doubt run into, let God sort
Yesterday, a high-profile Christian member brought two other high-profile Christian member's salvation into question, saying he doubted they would be saved and that he was not comfortable having them as brothers in Christ. He justified this by saying that their interpretation of the Bible and their subsequent behavior did not match his, the one tru ...[text shortened]... will burn in hell unless he repents and eradicates the inconsistencies in his position.
Dr. S
out who belongs to Him and you do what you know to do. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWouldn't you offer the above-mentioned salvation doubter the same advice?
I'll save you some grief you will no doubt run into, let God sort
out who belongs to Him and you do what you know to do. 🙂
Kelly
For that matter, doesn't the entire practice of building requirements for salvation into a religious doctrine violate your advice? When a preacher says "You must be baptized/repent/born again/not sleep with men/etc. in order to get to heaven," is he in violation of your advice? What about when you share those same beliefs when witnessing - are you violating your own advice then?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAll the time! God has to reveal Himself to each person, they must
Wouldn't you offer the above-mentioned salvation doubter the same advice?
be called of God to answer Him. If they ignore His call nothing I do
will change their ways or ideas. That is why I do not worry about
winning debates or forcing others to come to God. Only God can
start that with each person, so I do what I know to do, and let God
sort out the rest. I did not come to God because I lost a debate
and I will not force someone to come to God because I win one.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is a good observation.
I did not come to God because I lost a debate
and I will not force someone to come to God because I win one.
But it sure would make RHP debates a lot more interesting if it wasn't true! Imagine if we were playing for real stakes here, with people being won back and forth between the two factions as they won and lost arguments!
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat is an interesting observation. I'll tell ya what; I'm an agnostic - I don't know if they're a God or not. If you figure an appropriate scoring system, I will change my view to RB HILL bible thumping if the score rises above n widgets; if the score goes below n, I will adopt RWingett's scornful atheism. Points should be tallied each week and the final score posted on each Friday and I will join the appropriate camp for the next week. Is my proposal acceptable?
This is a good observation.
But it sure would make RHP debates a lot more interesting if it wasn't true! Imagine if we were playing for real stakes here, with people being won back and forth between the two factions as they won and lost arguments!
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI don't think it works that way, in my beliefs you need a relationship
This is a good observation.
But it sure would make RHP debates a lot more interesting if it wasn't true! Imagine if we were playing for real stakes here, with people being won back and forth between the two factions as they won and lost arguments!
with God through Christ, and if I talk you into it, is it real? The
relationship must be real for you to be a Christian, I do not have
the insight to see who is and is not a Christian. It is those that belong
to God, not those that fit the KellyJay's check list of you must agree
with this that and the other thing. There are tells, like if you believe
you need to work you way into heaven, you are not relying on the
grace of God, if you are sinning left and right by cheating, lying,
stealing, sleeping around because you believe in the grace and not
works, I doubt your saved because you are not living your life for
God but your flesh.
Having said all that, I still will not say I know for sure who is and isn't
saved, for the simple reason they may have a relationship and God is
working on them. I don't worry about who is and isn't saved, I just try
to give the grace to those around me I have been given.
When the day of judgement happens it will all be sorted out.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
All the time! God has to reveal Himself to each person, they must
be called of God to answer Him.
What if that call involves something mutually exclusive to the Bible's
list of salvific requirements? Given that God adopts His plan for each
person and the world as the situation in time requires (as you seem to
be suggesting in the 'Bible Question' thread), how can you be so
certain that God is not revealing Himself in love to people who would
otherwise appear to be violating a particular term of salvation?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAre you implying that because god cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift that he is not omnipotent? First of all what is meant by omnipotence? My dictionary says:
The law of non-contradiction, simply stated, says that
logical contradictions cannot exist.
The law of non-contradiction is more powerful than God.
It prevents Him from making a rock too heavy for Him to lift.
It prevents Him from bringing both an unstoppable force and
an impassable barrier into existence.
It is his watchdog. It is his sup ...[text shortened]... law of non-contradiction
to make sure that law says it is OK.
Am I right or wrong?
Dr. S
1: Almighty
2: Having virtually unlimited authority or influence.
Virtually unlimited. What I have sometimes heard this to mean is that god can do anything that is doable. Hence god may be unable to violate the law of non-contradiction, but that it may not necessarily disqualify him from being omnipotent. He could still do everything that can be done.
Of course I've also heard theists claim that god can violate the law of non-contradiction with impunity. So god could make a square circle if he chose. Go figure.
This is one reason some people claim to be agnostic. The theists have no clear conception of what god actually is, and that the concept of god itself may be completely unknowable.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll have to mull this over some. Your ideas isn't exactly clear to me.
That is an interesting observation. I'll tell ya what; I'm an agnostic - I don't know if they're a God or not. If you figure an appropriate scoring system, I will change my view to RB HILL bible thumping if the score rises ...[text shortened]... the appropriate camp for the next week. Is my proposal acceptable?
It sounds like you envision some kind of market system, in which
people invest in shares of the different camps, and then try to argue
in the forums to make the camp look stronger, thereby raising the value of those shares.
I think this would work and not collapse into an equilibrium
in which all shares become in vested in one camp. Say for example
shares of Atheism are on the rise as people start to join the atheist
camp after RWills crushes RBHILL in some argument. There will
be a temporary rise in value of atheist shares, but it will be offset by
the weakening of the atheist camp by the theist who just joined, since
now there is philosophical dissent among the atheist camp, while the
theist camp remains philosphically pure, giving it more potential for
consistent argument and victory. And thus the pendulum will eventually
swing the other way.
I'd have to think over the mechanincs about how to implement this.
I don't think this site provides the means to do the bookkeeping, but
perhaps that could be done at another site, much like the ratings market that Phlab runs.
Dr. S