The 'Mathematical Proof !!!'.. That JohnLArmstrong does not understand basic Logic.

[estragon9]

John's argument is a logical not a mathematical argument. Yes, it uses a classic fallacy and is therefore, invalid. I'm with you. You then go on to say we know God is ... Huh?. You don't KNOW God is anything. Furthermore the idea of the trinity is silly. Trying to explain it logically is like trying to figure out how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. The foundation of your explanation is divine revelation recorded in a very flawed text. You have no argument at all.

[WizardofCalculus]

Actually, this isn't propositional logic, it's a categorical syllogism (which is formally understood in the context of predicate logic).

[cguevara12]

deistpaladin

[StewardOfEarth]

Logic-Transitivity of the biconditional. Premise: A if and only if B B if and only if C Proof: A therefore B C therefore A implies C* C therefore B A therefore C implies A* therefore, A if and only if C I would suggest you look this up in a textbook if you don't understand transitivity.

[StewardOfEarth]

For the apple example.

Apple implies fruit (notice not biconditional)

Apple implies Red (not biconditional- not even a true statement)

By Venn diagram-not a valid argument.

[StewardOfEarth]

Wikipedia has a nice definition if you still don't understand transitivity:

In mathematics, a binary relation R over a set X is transitive if whenever an element a is related to an element b, and b is in turn related to an element c, then a is also related to c.

[bandaidmafia]

Q: Is Jesus a being?

[Tunderf00t]

JohnLArmstrong is a deist idiot

this can be proven without math

LOL

[JJTecumseh87]

i cant find that video

[havock89]

Hahaha. thats funny. Well done with the dippy music!

[elpidi0526]

Fantastic!!

[Atai9]

I think H2O analogy is perfect. If you have a pitcher of water (God) and you pour it into 3 glasses, one you heat and it becomes steam, one you leave at room temperature, and one you turn to ice. All the water is still there in different forms like God is everywhere. If glass with ice would be Jesus he would still be God but in a form of ice and would be limited by the nature of ice (couldn't flow for example).

[DeistPaladin]

I've uploaded a new version of the video that this one responds to. Please feel free to use this video to respond to the new version. The old one is being taken down.

[Theologica37]

You once against presented a formal fallacy John.

WHAT YOU PRESENT IS NOT THE TRANSITIVE LAW.

Your predicate is wrong.

This is the transitive law:

A is B

B is C

Therefore A is C.

Your video is, once again, based on a fallacious argument.

I also found it audacious of you to think that you had disproved the trinity; if it is so easy, why hasn't any one of the MYRIAD of brilliant atheistic philosophers (Hume, Russell, Nietzsche, Quine, Ayer) figured out this extremely elementary "proof" before?

[DeistPaladin]

I just love the irony of someone who believes that God sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself because bleeding on a cross was the only way he could convince himself to forgive us for being sinful beings because an ancestor of ours who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake says that I don't understand logic.

[Theologica37]

I don't understand how you could be so inane as to take a poetic allegory literally.

You just spent an entire paragraph making yourself look like an absolute tool. Here you are spouting all of these frivolous, feeble adhominem attacks (with no actual argument) that not only do not take into account how the textual criticism-- but prove without a doubt that you are a close-minded bigot; not a "freethinker".

It appears you have childlike rage because of your embarassing error, and nothing more.

[DeistPaladin]

Oh the irony.  Your response, which does nothing to logically defend the absurdity of your beliefs, accuses me of "spouting ad hominems" while containing nothing but ad hominems. I suspect your accusation of "childlike rage" is also projection.

[Theologica37]

I guess when Jesus says "I am the door" that this means Jesus is wood and doorknob, right?

You have yet defended your embarassing and very elementary presentation of the transitive law. Your "proof" remains a logical fallacy; its not even a valid syllogism.

If you have any actual philosophical (thus far It appears you dont) or historical (you deny the consensus of scholarship on Christ and embrace a long refuted mythicism) arguments for your beliefs I welcome them; though I doubt they exist.

[DeistPaladin]

Watch my videos. Get back to me when you have a coherent response to any of them.

In the meantime, I'm going to remind you that my video has been reloaded and you may wish to make this a response to it.

[Theologica37]

John you made the exact same mistake. Your syllogism is invalid. It does not follow. Your predicates are wrong. That is not the transitive law. I don't know how to be more clear about this. Your mathematical "proof" Is-A-Fallacy.

This is the transitive Law:

A is B

B is C

_ A is C.

Your entire video argues on the basis of a SIMPLE logical fallacy. Its flawed. Its wrong.

I don't know how to get this through to you.

Just google the transitive law John.

[DeistPaladin]

I don't know how to get though to you either. The paradox of one-god-yet-three-persons was made up in committee as a compromise. You are aware of Nicaea, yes? In addition to the fact that it makes no sense, it's history is well known as being more political than divinely inspired.

And stop calling me "John". We're not friends.

Now, get back to me when you have something better than "nuh-uh".

[Theologica37]

You have yet given argument that it "makes no sense". You have given absolutely, NO LOGICAL argumentation for this. This is a Non sequitor.

No matter the amount of emotional rhetoric you throw in-- it doesn't fix your error.

To continue to nail you down, FIFTH TIME "DeistPaladin" Your "proof" is-a-logical-fallacy. Its not transitive. The conclusion does not follow from the premises of that syllogism. Its an invalid argument; and ALL invalid arguments are by definition UNSOUND.

Game Over.

[Theologica37]

Your argument:

A is B

A is C

_B is C (LOGICAL FALLACY)

Actual Transitive law:

A is B

B is C

_A is C  (VALID)

Google the transitive law if you don't believe me. Your logic is embarassing. Get the logic right before you even begin to strawman Christian theology or you will continue to be laughed at.

Good Day.

[blitzel3]

Here's the problem, His Logic: Happy (A) is Joyous (B) Happy (A) is Content (C) Joyous (B) is Content (C) This is right because all terms are synonymous, BUT that logic can NOT be applied equivalently with sets and subsets. For example: Apple (A) is Fruit (B) Orange (C) is Fruit (B) Apple (A) is Orange (C)? Logically, Apples are a subset of fruits and so are oranges and therefore they are within the same set, but not the same. Thus, 3 distinctions in 1 divine nature

[blitzel3]

Actually I must step in here and say that your ignorance of history is pathetic. If you had any actual understanding of early christian history you'd find the trinity doctrine expressed in the 1st century way before Nicaea, but that aside continue your babbling.

[biggregg5]

DP, hopefully I may call you John in the future. Not only the irony, but the arrogance that these guys actually think they know the mind and nature of the "Creator of the Universe." I can't wait for them to call bullshit on themselves for this little shell game they are playing. Just incredible how elusive one can be when defining something that has not one iota of evidence for it. Of course they like the water, steam, ice analogy. Sounds good, but is a bullshit analogy to a fictitious character

[biggregg5]

Oh...now it is poetic allegory. Will you guys please quit moving the target for your convenience?...and DP a bigot....please.

[blitzel3]

What is the nature of a mind? It is analogically a substance from which proceeds both intellect and will internally and not external to the mind itself.

Eternal Intellect (the Son; Logos) is not made, but is generated by the Eternal Mind, or Intelligent Agent (Father). From the Eternal Intellect and Mind proceeds the Will, which is the desire to act. The Eternal Mind has no compulsion for external action, yet does so, and thus it's Will is synonymous with Eternal Love (Holy Spirit).

[blitzel3]

Would that be a more proper analogy for the Christian Trinity? The H20 analogy doesn't hold up since H20 is never ice, water, and vapor at the same time in the same place.

[blitzel3]

As opposed to "desire" to act, Perhaps I should have said "capacity" to act. If action without any compulsion is done beneficially for another, that is unconditional love.

Therefore, in the christian world-view all actions done by God--for example the unnecessary creation of other beings with intellect and will--can only be said to be out of pure love.

[Theologica37]

Brilliant blitzel, Brilliant. An extremely similar articulation to that of St. Augustine.

[blitzel3]

Thank you. I was trying to express Aquinas' understanding of eternal procession within the divine nature, but Augustine conceived of it prior to him anyway.

[Epydemic2020]

I'm confused about how "B" went from "fruit" to "all fruit". Why did it do that?

Is this an accurate way to make your point?

1. apples are red

2. apples are tasty

therefore red is tasty.

[Theologica37]

Yeah same thing. You are saying something is something else in its nature. Its semantics. They are A statements.

I did not add the "must be" in there--- he did. I was just staying consistent with this mathematical "proof".

[Epydemic2020]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[longhornman99001]

What happened at 2:53?

[Theologica37]

Oops

[legodesi]

in addition to taking "blind" in two different senses, and incorrectly combining 2 and 3

[legodesi]

I share your skepticism of youtube atheologists. They seem, if their claims are accurate, to possess knowledge that naturalist philosophers don't.

[comradepinko]

It looks like Theologica doesn't know what an identity is.

A and B are the same thing.

A and C are the same thing.

Therefor B and C are the same thing.

The above IS NOT a fallacy, since none of the statements are A statements.

Theologica incorrectly described identities as universal affirmatives.

[Theologica37]

They are all 'A' statements. I even made sure to put the Aristotelian square on the screen for you. The statement that Something Is something else is a universal statement, not a particular. It is a formal fallacy. You are not correct.

I did not describe "identities" as universal "affirmatives". In logic, they are all "A statements" (Ex:: Something IS this).

Did you even watch the video?

[TheEcumenator]

i like the analogy that H2O is water, ice and vapour.

water is not ice

ice is not vapour

and vapour is not water

but all are H2O. Simple

[vbfl920]

I like that. That explains it pretty simple enough.

[theman77777777232]

I don't understand why the trinity cannot be explained as God manifesting himself in 3 different forms, each form distinct from one another, just like the water analogy. Perhaps you or Theologica can clear this up for me.

I'm liking this water analogy better than mine. I kinda see your point on how my foot, hand, and nose are "parts" of me, and not fully me. I *kinda* see your point. But I don't see this being the case with the H2O analogy. They aren't "parts" of H2O, they're all simply H2O.

[TheAmazingImbecile]

I take my former claim back, the H2O analogy works perfectly and can be construed in such a way that it is not modalism. Trinitarian theology teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share "one substance". In the analogy this is H2O.

The Ice, water, and vapour can also refer to themselves as "I" but refer to the other states of H2O as "you" thus being distinct "persons". This analogy is elegantly simple and works perfectly, much better than my fruit/apples and oranges analogy.

[theman77777777232]

Sweet! You're a humble guy. I like it better than my analogy too, as I stated. Peace.

[TheAmazingImbecile]

It is indeed a superior analogy, but unfortunately I have just found another problem with it which was pointed out by blitzel3 in this comment section, that "H20 is never ice, water, and vapor at the same time in the same place".

I think that we need to go from making analogies with physical objects (which always seem to fail) to making analogies based on immaterial things, such as love and intellect.

[theman77777777232]

"making analogies based on immaterial things, such as love and intellect."

Okay, I'll take a stab at this one : )

Love, anger, and sadness. All are distinct from each other, yet all are emotions (of the same substance). And yes, all can be felt at the same place and at the same time, and even by the same individual (especially if you're bipolar).

I think that works!

I gotta go to bed now, my brain hurtz. haha

Later.

[TheAmazingImbecile]

However, the H2O analogy can still be used to illustrate a concept, although it is not a perfect analogy. Peace.

[theman77777777232]

Yeah, I still like the H2O analogy. I gotta think it through though.

[TheAmazingImbecile]

I have good news regarding the H2O analogy, which makes it valid. There is a "triple point" of water in which all three states-gas, liquid, and solid- can co-exist at the same time and in the same place. So this analogy, if used properly, is near perfect.

[theman77777777232]

Nice.

[ticobassie]

"you need to take down this video"

Why? I don't understand the need. Even if his argument is wrong and even if he acknowledges that, he is not in any way compelled to take it down.

It is patronising on your part to tell someone what to do in response to your thoughts other than consider it.

[Theologica37]

Its really not, because I don't think he meant to make the mistake-- it would seem he found it on the internet or something and I wanted to give him a chance to take it down. Thats all that was. He said he learned this "proof" in geometry class.

[InDefenseofChrist]

jrsbarker,

that is prob the lamest claim ever...wow a teacher said this? that really scares me

[corthew]

Numerically his argument may be true but he wasn't applying it numerically.

[KnownNoMore]

LOL, ok that was indeed quite an obvious fallacy

[theman77777777232]

Hey Theologica, here's some mathematical proofs that you can take t the bank:

watch?v=4qn3I78Mwi0

watch?v=y8L4fon-ngU

Are you much of a mathematician? If you have any trouble understanding those 2 short vids, just let me know and I'll expound. It's absolutely amazing when you actually get it (took me a while myself after tons of research).

Peace.

[theman77777777232]

BTW, disregard the creationism/evolution part at the beginning. This was a mere assertion Dr. Bluer. This has nothing to do with creationism/evolution. I wish he would have never added that into the video.

The mathematical content, however, is unassailable. It leaves no room for error. See for yourself.

[LennyBound]

I might be wrong, but I think your objection only stands if the argument was referring to sets of objects instead of singular objects. John was simply restating a basic transitive relation (i.e. whenever A = B and B = C, then also A = C).

Give "Transitive Relation" a Google search and let me know what you think; if it is, indeed, true that transitivity is wrong, it would be good to know.

[Theologica37]

This is correct, but God would be a universal in this context-- if he is arguing on the basis FROM his "proof" then hes wrong as its invalid. If he argues the way you're presenting it, then it is singular as you have noted. However, he would be begging the question as he would deny the Trinity by this presumption! Thats the point. Its fallacious on many, many grounds.

[LennyBound]

I'm still fairly confused. Is Jesus a singular entity? Is the Father a singular entity? Is the Holy Spirit a singular entity? And why should we view God as a universal?

My apologies if this is elementary stuff; I'm just a little lost.

[Theologica37]

They are distinct in Personhood, this doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit is strictly singular. Your bringing up the Incarnation (Christ's nature). Christ was one person, his self, but two natures: one divine and one human. Not two selves, two natures.

God is universal as He would not be limited to time or space but be the creator there-of etc

[Theologica37]

So its somewhat different when we ask Jesus as a singular entity, because I'm not sure whether you're referring to the incarnation or The Son as he is now.

I think the Trinity can best be understood by Love. If God is love you have the Lover (Father) the Beloved (Son) and the Love that they share (Holy Spirit).

The persons of the Trinity are distinct, but are one in essence. The perfection of unity and plurality.

I hope that answers your question..

[blitzel3]

In addition, it can be said that all forms, or essences of things, exist in the mind inasmuch as they can be conceived. God being having no body and being pure form--essence is his existence--he conceives of himself, which is itself a form that proceeds from the Mind of God. Thus there are 2 distinctions within the one divine nature. The relationship God has with himself therein takes on form of itself--the Holy Spirit. Thus there are ultimately 3 distinctions within the 1 divine nature.

[DeistPaladin]

False comparison. "Red" is a quality. We're discussing beings here. 

Either Jesus is God or Jesus is not God. Jesus can't be both God and not God at the same time. That's the point of my video.

Now, if I've misunderstood the Trinity, fair enough. Please correct me by explaining it.

In turn, I'll ask you to kindly stop telling me and others what we think. I don't believe God is perfect, as the very word "perfect" is based on relative judgment.

[Theologica37]

Its a universal statement. The quality red in this context is a universal. I made sure and correct you on this in my video. Its an A statement. Your "proof" is a formal fallacy; there is no arguing this.

If perfection is relative, then your statement that perfection is relative isn't perfect (untrue).

You argue by quite the many falsisms, john.

[Theologica37]

The idea that there is no absolute perfection is self-refuting. The trinity does not say that they are all PART of God. The doctrine states that they are One in essense, Three in Persons. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God; yet they are distinct in persons. Your argument assumes that God is limited to something (metaphysically impossible for a Necessary being).

There is a reason no atheist philosopher, even the most established, claim to be able to show the trinity false.

[theman77777777232]

Is it kind of like this Theologica?

My hand is me, my foot is me, and my nose is me, yet they are distinct body parts.

Is it something along these lines?

[TheAmazingImbecile]

The problem with your comparison is that the hand, for example, is not fully you in and of itself, and thus you=hand+foot+...

but without all parts you are not you, and thus the hand is only part of you but not you.

The doctrine of the trinity teaches that each person of the trinity is God, not part of God, and thus each must be God in and of themself, but only one Divine essence.

[Tonloc1986]

False dichotomy. Jesus is God as well as man as one in the same. Your argument is based off this logical fallacy. You are attempting to separate his divine nature from his human nature to have a fallacious argument. You created a false dichotomy of Jesus by putting his humanity and his divinity in separate categories to say he's one or the other. That's a logical fallacy. ;-)

[blitzel3]

Well Jesus was not Human prior to the incarnation, so we can address him without reference to his humanity if we are talking about the divine nature.

[Tonloc1986]

I'm not really understanding where you are going with this. Are you saying that without addressing Jesus' humanity prior to his incarnation that John's argument would be more valid? I don't get where you are going with this. Please clarify if you will. ;-)

[blitzel3]

What I'm saying is that Jesus was divine prior to the incarnation, therefore if we talk about the trinity it is important to address only his divinity. Otherwise, the question of how Jesus could subsequently be both God and man will get in the way of the original issue: The Trinity.

Once the Trinity is addressed, then we can move on the incarnation because EVEN IF the incarnation was not valid, it would not disprove the Trinity.

[blitzel3]

Jesus was not human prior to the incarnation, so it is best not to discuss it when arguing for the Trinity.

[Tonloc1986]

That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. It seemed like to me John was basing his argument of the premise of Jesus either being God or not God, and not being both at the same time due to ignoring Jesus humanity. I do accept that my conclusion may have been unwarranted, but this was my honest assertion of John's reasoning. Thanks for the clarification. ;-)

[blitzel3]

No problem :)

Peace