Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote:How old fashioned you are. You must learn to think out of the box. ...

I think most should learn to think in the box first, as if you think Logic is to do with fashion you're not thinking.

For example:

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." - Simone Weil

You want to slam the door shut. How old fashioned!

Give me an example of what she means.

Arising_uk wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. ...

A logical contradiction and therefore always false.

It's not a contradiction. It's a paradox, an apparent contradiction.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. I don't mean that God does sometimes and sometimes does not. I mean that God does both simultaneously, by doing it automatically, and by nature. I suppose it is a pantheistic position. Or a panentheistic one.

What should we call a position that is both theistic and deistic?
I think this would be: "confused".
A pantheistic god, in the model of, say, Spinoza would be neither a Theistic god, nor a Deistic god; but nature itself. Not desirous, not intervening, but embodied in the necessity of causality, absolute, boundless.

But that isn't what we are talking about. Is this concept really too difficult?

Harbal wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Forgive me but the hallmark of all your posts is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Just like Socrates.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. I don't mean that God does sometimes and sometimes does not. I mean that God does both simultaneously, by doing it automatically, and by nature. I suppose it is a pantheistic position. Or a panentheistic one.

What should we call a position that is both theistic and deistic?
I think this would be: "confused".
A pantheistic god, in the model of, say, Spinoza would be neither a Theistic god, nor a Deistic god; but nature itself. Not desirous, not intervening, but embodied in the necessity of causality, absolute, boundless.

But that isn't what we are talking about. Is this concept really too difficult?

Who is 'we'? Is that the Royal 'we'? I'm not the only one to say you are confused (I notice when looking at other posts). Maybe the concepts are indeed too difficult for you.
God can't intervene and not intervene.
A deist holds that the deity created and left the universe alone.
A Theist that god continually tinkers.
You have to make up your mind about that.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Forgive me but the hallmark of all your posts is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Just like Socrates.

No not at all like Socrates.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. ...

A logical contradiction and therefore always false.

It's not a contradiction. It's a paradox, an apparent contradiction.

Only in your head.

Ya know, the need to have the last word is also a weakness. I'd copy and paste you in that if I weren't so lazy, which is also a weakness.

Jaded Sage wrote:
Just like Socrates.

Don't under estimate yourself. Socrates was a fake, he was only pretending to be ignorant. You, on the other hand, are the genuine article.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You have to make up your mind about that.

Why?

Harbal wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:
Just like Socrates.

Don't under estimate yourself. Socrates was a fake, he was only pretending to be ignorant. You, on the other hand, are the genuine article.

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

thedoc wrote:
Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

What pot and kettle?

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You have to make up your mind about that.

Why?

Because you have two categories which have no place with each other. You are asking black to be white.

The idea of Deism was invented as an alternative to the invention of Theism.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

What pot and kettle?

Do try to keep up. It's a popular phrase.

thedoc wrote:
Do try to keep up.

I'm trying but you're too quick for me.