Page 4 of 6

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 16th, 2010, 5:57 pm
by postodave
Hi nerd
Infinity is not so much a number as a property of several numbers who existence can be inferred from the numbers we do know. So if we say the numbers we do know are real objects and the law of excluded middle is valid we can infer the existence of a vast number of infinite numbers, so many in fact that there are more infinite numbers than finite numbers. I'm not a mathematician but I'm reliably assured this is the case. So if you are going to reject the excluded middle for infinite numbers then I would think you have to reject it for finite numbers as well since it is by its application to finite numbers that we infer by reductio absurdam that infinite numbers exist. Of course you can keep the excluded middle but then you are going to have to keep the infinite numbers as well. But ask a mathematician, I could be mistaken. Just to remind you my point was that the laws of logic are not so fixed we can assume in advance that they must apply to everything.
I don't really get the idea of things being both real and true. Lewis says somewhere that truth is always about something and reality is what it is about. So normally something that is true, usually a statement of some kind, would not be true about itself but about something else.Whether we think infinite numbers are real will depend on our philosophy of number but if you say they are not real why would you say some other numbers are real? And what does real mean here?
The Lewis Anscombe debate has been discussed several times in these forums. For a case study on it see For Russell and Copleston try

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 18th, 2010, 10:14 pm
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 19th, 2010, 9:47 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 20th, 2010, 3:51 pm
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 24th, 2010, 10:51 am
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 26th, 2010, 6:43 pm
by Nerd42
Now look here. You seem to be saying that God can behave in one way in relation to us, being good and just and merciful, but can behave completely differently in his secret closet somewhere, actually being mean and nasty and evil. Either that or you're giving a meaning to the word "essence" that is strange to me.

What does it mean to you for God to have an essence? We know God is a person. Do the persons we are familiar with who were created in His image have essences?

The "laws of arithmetic" as I understand them, only apply to finite numbers. I don't see how the fact that the laws of arithmetic have a limited scope causes a problem for the law of the excluded middle.

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 26th, 2010, 7:48 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 27th, 2010, 8:09 pm
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 28th, 2010, 9:53 pm
by cyranorox
responding to Nerd's prev. post: yes, we have essences. No essences are knowable; the knowable, which is acts [btw the OC does not accept the RC formula that 'God is pure act'], deeds, relationship, and narrative, is under the rubric of 'energies'.

@Postodave: not to know that God is a person is not to accept a very basic part of Christian understanding. Am i misunderstanding you here?

The rules of logic are a secondary matter; the biography is primary. The data are the moments of encounter. We can build and elaborate on these, especially what Christ said - and we have - but any time the syllogistic constructs occlude or contradict the *story*, they are amiss.

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 28th, 2010, 10:32 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 29th, 2010, 1:26 am
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 29th, 2010, 9:20 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: April 30th, 2010, 12:24 am
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 1st, 2010, 12:31 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 2nd, 2010, 12:48 am
by Nerd42
I didn't merely say Calvinism was wrong, I said irrational, which is just another way of saying Calvinism doesn't adhere to the fundamental laws. There can be no common ground and no arguments outside the laws, for all rational values and arguments depend on them. Denying them is like saying, "This sentence is not true." It's not something you can hold a debate about. See the beginning of Mere Christianity for the difference between arguing and quarreling. In an enlightened debate there must always be a third thing that both parties acknowledge and without the fundamental laws there's no third common standard, no Bible, no God, no nothing.