Page 5 of 6

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 2nd, 2010, 1:28 pm
by postodave
You said you were not sure if Calvin's views were rational and you have said that rational means adhering to Aristotle's three laws of thought. Now if you can demonstrate that Calvin is violating these laws you will have a case that his argument is wrong. That is how rational debate works. So to say a view is irrational in your sense is to imply that the argument used in support of it is wrong and that unless some other argument does stand up the view cannot be held to be true iff the only reason for holding that view is argument. And then you will need an argument to demonstrate that this view is one of those that could only be held on the basis of argument and not on any other grounds

But simply asserting that he is violating those laws is not the same thing as demonstrating that he is violating them. You are assuming that to deny the absolute universality of the scope of Aristotle's laws is to deny their validity and undercut the possibility of debate but you have not really given any reasons why this is the case you have merely kept asserting it. You say you cannot give reasons because giving reasons presupposes the validity of Aristotle's laws. The problem is that I have not ever denied the validity of Aristotle's laws only suggested that their scope does not extend to the divine essence.

As we are simply going round in circles I think we had better chuck this in, don't you?

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 3rd, 2010, 2:29 am
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 3rd, 2010, 9:00 am
by agingjb
Hmm. I would have said that, in mathematics, infinity can be given (many) well-defined axiomatic bases, free of paradox but often with undecidable questions within the axiomatic basis. (Actually it might be better to say infinities - and infinitesimals).

For the believer of course all these systems are implicit in the mind of the Deity - which implies a sort of Platonism.

But as for theology, I would have said that rational debate is possible but that it will soon become clear that there are aspects of the Divine that transcend any formal or informal language. It is up to the theologian and philosopher to clarify meaning as far as possible. I would not, for instance, speak of "logic" but of "logics".

An example: the word "necessary" will soon arise, but a glance at a text on Modal Logic will reveal that there many (actually an infinite number of) formal systems - all consistent - with variations in the precise meaning of "necessary".

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 3rd, 2010, 1:25 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 3rd, 2010, 3:46 pm
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 3rd, 2010, 7:56 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 3rd, 2010, 10:27 pm
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 3rd, 2010, 11:01 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 4th, 2010, 4:03 pm
by cyranorox
As the truth given to us rests on encounter, testimony, narrative and mystery, I don't see where the laws of thought have much traction. Either you trust the witnesses, or you don't. There's no law to help with this decision. Either the verbal icon of Christ in the Gospels calls you to alligiance, or it does not; what law can rule on character? Either the beauty and meaning of the mysteries moves your heart, or you remain cold; no syllogism will aid you.

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 4th, 2010, 9:49 pm
by Nerd42
The other context I am referring to is what you describe as "how God is in himself" which you are suggesting can be different than how God is to us. I'm saying if that were so, God would be dishonest and untrustworthy - the way he acted toward us would be just that - an act, not real.

Your statements about the flower are not specific enough to be propositions we can evaluate. I think the term for them would be "." Open sentences do not cause a problem for the law of the excluded middle, as it only applies to propositions with sufficient specificity.

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 4th, 2010, 10:21 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 6th, 2010, 7:05 pm
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 6th, 2010, 11:04 pm
by postodave

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 6th, 2010, 11:33 pm
by Nerd42

Re: Time and Truth

PostPosted: May 9th, 2010, 6:29 pm
by postodave
I don't want to be rude nerd but I really am pulling out.