OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 11:08:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Metropolitan Anthony on "Life beyond the Grave and Eternal Suffering"  (Read 11225 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #90 on: May 21, 2007, 01:14:04 PM »

George, George, George. Matthew 6:13
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
How did Christ teach us to pray?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 01:18:57 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 21, 2007, 01:18:48 PM »

George, George, George. Matthew 6:13
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
How did Christ teach us to prey?

You live in Greece, don't you? Perhaps you would care to write this verse in it's original Koine instead of a second rate english translation.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #92 on: May 21, 2007, 01:24:37 PM »

deliver us from the cleaver one.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 21, 2007, 01:33:40 PM »

Ο Γιώργος είναι πονηρός,
κι αυτά που λέει μην τα τρώς,
κι από τις έντεκα κι εμπρός
κυκλοφοράει για γαμπρός
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #94 on: May 21, 2007, 01:46:21 PM »

I see what you mean regarding translations. But When all of these atributes are incorperated into someone. It forms there chraracter. If it becomes part of someones character that person is left powerless when these things are stripped away. I know your point very well. Let us look at God Character instead. Why would God begrudge anyone with this sort of existance. This is an act of revenge. God is love.
 This is what St.Athanasius has to say.

 and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 02:38:48 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #95 on: May 21, 2007, 01:53:05 PM »

Yes you did:
For any set A, the empty set is a subset of A, so of course, if you assume that the empty set is the set of "non existent things" you come to the conclusion that non-existence is among the existent things since the empty set is a subset of the set of existant things.

But if you read the proof, you will see that I didn't assume that, I assumed that non-existence was the complement of existence. That is to say, I assumed that non-existence is that which does not exist, this complement is not the necessarily empty set, in B = {} is true (and then trivially by definition, not by assumption) if and only if you assume that A = U. This was not assumed for the theorem, all that was assumed is that non-existence is that which does not exist. So I must say, I'm not too sure where you're getting this thing about B = {} being a fundamental assumption thing.

Quote
And yes, a set with no elements is still a set, it is still something, it is not nothing. A bag can be empty, but the bag still exists.

A set, however, is a logical order beyond its elements by the axioms of paring and infinity.

Quote
It is a "non-non-existent" thing, i.e. it exists....Look at that!  I've just conjured up existence out of non-existence. And all this time I thought that only God could call things into being ex nihilo.... Wink

Well, Set Theory has been called 'God's Mathematics' and as any professor of Mathematics who teaches set theory will more likely than not tell you, it is certainly the means by which men become gods. Wink

Quote
Perhaps where you are going wrong in your logic is that you equate "null" with "nihilo"....just a suggestion....

Not at all, I thought about that, but then realized there were problems with such logic, so I simply made my assumption as fundamental as possible, I merely assumed that non-existence was simply that which did not exist. No metaphysical arguments about the null set needed.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #96 on: May 21, 2007, 02:18:59 PM »

And he continues:
Quote
Grudging existence to none therefore,

His mercy is death.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 02:19:50 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 21, 2007, 02:20:54 PM »

Well, Set Theory has been called 'God's Mathematics' and as any professor of Mathematics who teaches set theory will more likely than not tell you, it is certainly the means by which men become gods. Wink
We still have the problem of the empty product, don't we? Wink
And more to the point, we still have the ultimate reification fallacy of the concept of non-existence.
But apart from that, your proof is spiffing......
I dare you to publish it.Cheesy
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 02:30:18 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #98 on: May 21, 2007, 02:46:35 PM »

Quote
But apart from that, your proof is spiffing......


I have to agree. Pure genius. Grin
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #99 on: May 21, 2007, 02:59:11 PM »

Hay George. Your a pretty sharp guy yourself.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #100 on: May 21, 2007, 03:00:59 PM »

We still have the problem of the empty product, don't we? Wink

I dont believe 'we' have any problem. In fact you're the first person I've ever come across who's had an issue with it. It makes sense to me why there is exactly one mapping of the empty set onto the empty set; and accordingly why the identity element of multiplication is 1 and not 0.

Quote
And more to the point, we still have the ultimate reification fallacy of the concept of non-existence.

Well, if not non-existence, what would you call the complement of the set of all things that exist?

Quote
But apart from that, your proof is spiffing......
I dare you to publish it.Cheesy

To a set theorist the result is rather trivial, certainly nothing worthy of publication. To most theologians...well most of the wouldn't be able to follow the mathematical logic anyway. I only come out as intelligent amongst theologians, amongst mathematicians the only response I would get is 'and it took you how long to come up this trivial theorem?...stop wasting our time.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #101 on: May 21, 2007, 03:31:10 PM »

This just dawned on me George. I have a question for you? Why in the world would you be debating non-existance with GIC if you in fact believe that all will exist at the second coming. Cheesy
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #102 on: May 21, 2007, 03:36:08 PM »

This just dawned on me George. I have a question for you? Why in the world would you be debating non-existance with GIC if you in fact believe that all will exist at the second coming. Cheesy

Because evil has been defined as non-existence and the question at hand is whether or not God is the author of Evil.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 21, 2007, 03:44:16 PM »

Well, if not non-existence, what would you call the complement of the set of all things that exist?
It doesn't matter what we choose to call it, it is a mental construct denoting an absence. Absence cannot be either an element or a subset of things which are present. You are commiting the fallacy of the reification of the zero. Treating non-existence as an existant is self contradictory because non-existence and existence are opposites, and an entity must either exist or not exist.  Existence exists - existence cannot not-exist, and non-existence cannot exist. You are treating non-existence as state, but it is not a state, because a state can only describe a condition of an existant. This is the fallacy of the reification of the zero. But don't take my word for it. See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand, Chapter Six Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #104 on: May 21, 2007, 03:51:57 PM »

Can I please go to bed now?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #105 on: May 21, 2007, 07:28:20 PM »

When you wake up and had ample time to think it over. Please answer these questions.
1. If you believe that there is a possiblity that there is a state of non-existance. why do you believe that all will resurrect?
2. Knowing God in your best, that your knowledge can offer. Do you believe that he would allow someone to suffer in the state that you discribe?
3.You have discribed a platonic view of salvation when you say all will resurrect. But you still believe that a state of non-existance exists. Your allover the place. Can you please discribe witch possition you hold in detail?

Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 21, 2007, 07:44:18 PM »

When you wake up and had ample time to think it over. Please answer these questions.
1. If you believe that there is a possiblity that there is a state of non-existance. why do you believe that all will resurrect?
2. Knowing God in your best, that your knowledge can offer. Do you believe that he would allow someone to suffer in the state that you discribe?
3.You have discribed a platonic view of salvation when you say all will resurrect. But you still believe that a state of non-existance exists. Your allover the place. Can you please discribe witch possition you hold in detail?
Let me repeat what I said about non-existence:
It doesn't matter what we choose to call it, it is a mental construct denoting an absence. Absence cannot be either an element or a subset of things which are present. You are commiting the fallacy of the reification of the zero. Treating non-existence as an existant is self contradictory because non-existence and existence are opposites, and an entity must either exist or not exist.  Existence exists - existence cannot not-exist, and non-existence cannot exist. You are treating non-existence as state, but it is not a state, because a state can only describe a condition of an existant. This is the fallacy of the reification of the zero. But don't take my word for it. See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand, Chapter Six Wink
So if I say that non-existence is not a state, why are you now asking me if I "believe that there is a possiblity that there is a state of non-existence"? Non-existence is not a state. That's the whole point: non-being can never be a "state of being". non-existence can never be a sub-set of existence. Non-existence can have no existence.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #107 on: May 21, 2007, 08:22:48 PM »

Let me repeat what I said about non-existence:So if I say that non-existence is not a state, why are you now asking me if I "believe that there is a possiblity that there is a state of non-existence"? Non-existence is not a state. That's the whole point: non-being can never be a "state of being". non-existence can never be a sub-set of existence. Non-existence can have no existence.
I fully agree. There is no-existents. So time and space can never meet.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 09:56:26 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #108 on: May 21, 2007, 10:46:04 PM »

It doesn't matter what we choose to call it, it is a mental construct denoting an absence.

That's all set theory (and theology, for that matter) is, they are mental constructs denoting a theoretical reality.

Quote
Absence cannot be either an element or a subset of things which are present. You are commiting the fallacy of the reification of the zero.

I haven't even dealt with the issue of zero, all I have done is deal with sets. I dont believe that the null set is zero, for that would imply that the universe is defined as the existant. Plus, you yourself have already argued that the set of non-existent things is not zero by including evil, a tangable reality, in the set of non-existent things. I personally believe the set of non-existence to be non-empty, but whether or not it is empty is really irrelevant to the proof I presented.

Quote
Treating non-existence as an existant is self contradictory because non-existence and existence are opposites, and an entity must either exist or not exist.  Existence exists - existence cannot not-exist, and non-existence cannot exist. You are treating non-existence as state, but it is not a state, because a state can only describe a condition of an existant.

I haven't treated anything as 'states' I have dealt with a well defined set (things that exist), and taken its complement, which is a trivial thing. What you seem to be advocating is this strange notion that set theory can only deal with existant things. Perhaps it is just that you have not spent enough time with theoretical mathematics, perhaps if you had the opportunity to consider the beauty of computers that were theoretically impossible to create or of shapes that were theoretically impossible to depict save in theorems you would have more appreciation for the mathematics that transcends mundane existence.

Mathematics is not dependent on the existent or non-existent, mathematics is the only science that, were you to wake up tomorrow and find that the universe does not exist and never existed, would be just as relevant as the day before. In many way, mathematics is the mind of God. In the words of Sir James Jeanes, 'From the intrinsic evidence of his creation, the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician.' You cannot limit mathematics to the existant or the universe anymore than you can limit God to the same. And if you insist that God does not transcent both existence and non-existence, you must at least admit that Mathematics transcends God, for mathematics clearly transcends both.

Quote
This is the fallacy of the reification of the zero. But don't take my word for it. See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand, Chapter Six Wink

You seem to be attacking my proof based on the philosophical grounds that you dont like what it does; but it follows the axioms of set theory, we can only conclude that any philosophical objection that conflicts with the mathematics is simply wrong. I presume you're inaccurately applying this so-called fallacy; however if it can be applied as you have, it conflicts with the axiom of the empty set, the axiom of replacement, and the axiom of the power set, which would negate the consistancy of the natural numbers. Perhaps you should analyze your arguments in the context of set theory and number theory.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,428


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #109 on: May 21, 2007, 10:55:46 PM »

So, how in the world does a mathematical abstraction even apply to God, who is utterly beyond all human abstractions?  Are you, GiC, not making an idol of an abstraction?  I'm sorry, but we don't worship mathematics--we worship God and God alone!
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,428


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #110 on: May 21, 2007, 11:36:40 PM »

I acknowledge how Holy Tradition has borrowed words, concepts, and even trains of reasoning from various fields of "pagan" philosophy in Her quest to more clearly articulate our faith in the God-Man Jesus Christ.  However, nothing in our Tradition can contradict the word of Scripture, for the Holy Spirit who speaks via Tradition is the same Holy Spirit who speaks via the written word of Scripture, and He cannot change His mind.  When in our philosophizing we draw conclusions that run counter to the Scriptures, we need to defer to the Scriptures and recognize the fallacy of our reasoning.  To do otherwise by holding doggedly to the "correctness" of our logic and conclusions in opposition to the pure doctrine of Scripture is the definition of heresy.

For instance, let us start from the philosophical premise that evil is a created "substance" with an existence independent of its creator.  Let's say then that it is possible for a created being (e.g., man) to unite himself to this ethereal essence of "evil".  In the Last Restoration when Christ comes to destroy this "substance of evil"--an impossible act considering that one cannot destroy that which has no existence--we assert that this return of the "substance of evil" to its previous state of non-existence also results in the utter annihilation of all those created beings who have not allowed Christ to break their union to this "substance of evil".  Does this not contradict Christ's clear teaching in the Apocalypse 20:11-15 and in Matthew 25:31-46 that all the dead will be raised to stand before His throne and be judged, the righteous awarded eternal life and the wicked condemned to everlasting punishment?  Therefore, must we not for the sake of the True Faith recognize the fallacy of our philosophizing and start from another foundation--let us say...that evil is NOT a created substance with an existence independent of its creator.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #111 on: May 22, 2007, 12:22:27 AM »

I acknowledge how Holy Tradition has borrowed words, concepts, and even trains of reasoning from various fields of "pagan" philosophy in Her quest to more clearly articulate our faith in the God-Man Jesus Christ.  However, nothing in our Tradition can contradict the word of Scripture, for the Holy Spirit who speaks via Tradition is the same Holy Spirit who speaks via the written word of Scripture, and He cannot change His mind.  When in our philosophizing we draw conclusions that run counter to the Scriptures, we need to defer to the Scriptures and recognize the fallacy of our reasoning.  To do otherwise by holding doggedly to the "correctness" of our logic and conclusions in opposition to the pure doctrine of Scripture is the definition of heresy.

I disagree agree with your assumption, I would argue with clement of alexandria that scripture and philosophy are both equal authorities. (Though I would disagree with him in saying that mathematics is a superior authority to both).

Of course, regardless of my epistemology, scripture does support my position:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,428


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #112 on: May 22, 2007, 12:40:11 AM »

I disagree agree with your assumption, I would argue with clement of alexandria that scripture and philosophy are both equal authorities. (Though I would disagree with him in saying that mathematics is a superior authority to both).

Of course, regardless of my epistemology, scripture does support my position:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

But then you turn the Bible into a source book of axioms that you use to reason your way to particular doctrinal conclusions.  Ultimately in your system, reason is the proper interpreter of the Scriptures.  Is this not how most Protestants use the Bible?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 22, 2007, 05:57:27 AM »

Plus, you yourself have already argued that the set of non-existent things is not zero by including evil, a tangable reality, in the set of non-existent things.
Really? ...Where?  I think you'll find that Demetrios G simply misunderstood me and interpreted me as saying that. What I have repeately said is that evil is "parasitic" and has no independent existence. I never said evil isn't a reality, I used the metaphor that a wave on the sea is a reality, but cannot exist independent of the sea.

I personally believe the set of non-existence to be non-empty, but whether or not it is empty is really irrelevant to the proof I presented.
And I personally believe (and all modern philosophers and logician agree) that non-existence cannot be a set, because a set is, and non-existence is not. Non-existence cannot be a property of something (i.e. "some thing") because non-existence is the property of nothing (i.e. "no thing"). You are treating non-existence as a property of something when you use the expression: {x: x does not exist}

I haven't treated anything as 'states' I have dealt with a well defined set (things that exist), and taken its complement, which is a trivial thing.
I'm afraid you are dealing with states. In your proof, you expressed "things that exist" as {x: x exists} which is the set of things in the state of being. So what is the compliment of this set? Your proof says it's: {x: x does not exist} which is the set of things in the state of non-being.

we can only conclude that any philosophical objection that conflicts with the mathematics is simply wrong.
OR, we can conclude that mathematics is next to useless in trying to explain metaphysical phenomena, or in determining whether something even is a metaphysical phenomenon. Mathematics has it's place, as all sciences do.... and they should each stick to their field.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2007, 08:20:25 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #114 on: May 22, 2007, 11:24:37 AM »

But then you turn the Bible into a source book of axioms that you use to reason your way to particular doctrinal conclusions.  Ultimately in your system, reason is the proper interpreter of the Scriptures.  Is this not how most Protestants use the Bible?

Actually, no, axioms need to be far more fundamental than nearly every element of scriptures, I was just presenting an accidental element of my argument and, no, I didn't come up with it you'll find it in Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #115 on: May 22, 2007, 11:40:26 AM »

Really? ...Where?  I think you'll find that Demetrios G simply misunderstood me and interpreted me as saying that. What I have repeately said is that evil is "parasitic" and has no independent existence. I never said evil isn't a reality, I used the metaphor that a wave on the sea is a reality, but cannot exist independent of the sea.

Then, rationally speaking, evil is dependent on existence and, therefore, a direct result of existence.

Quote
And I personally believe (and all modern philosophers and logician agree) that non-existence cannot be a set, because a set is, and non-existence is not. Non-existence cannot be a property of something (i.e. "some thing") because non-existence is the property of nothing (i.e. "no thing"). You are treating non-existence as a property of something when you use the expression: {x: x does not exist}

The description {x: x does not exist} is accidental to the proof, it's enough to define the set as Ac

Quote
I'm afraid you are dealing with states. In your proof, you expressed "things that exist" as {x: x exists} which is the set of things in the state of being. So what is the compliment of this set? Your proof says it's: {x: x does not exist} which is the set of things in the state of non-being.

A set of states is not a state, just as a set of numbers is not a number, it's a set. It's not an empty set that's null, it's the content of the empty set. The set of the empty set {{}} has cardinality 1 and is essentially the set theory definition of 1, this is because the empty set is something with cardinality, but the contents of the empty set has cardinality 0.

Quote
OR, we can conclude that mathematics is next to useless in trying to explain metaphysical phenomena, or in determining whether something even is a metaphysical phenomenon. Mathematics has it's place, as all sciences do.... and they should each stick to their field.

Yes, we could live in a fantasy land and pretend that the real numbers are not consistant and counting is an inherently contradictory act. Perhaps we could call this 'christian mathematics' and teach it between 'creation science' and astrology. Or we could accept the fact that Mathematics is the basis of our understanding of the Universe, that it is the standard of logic, and that all of science and philosophy are dependent on Mathematics, and simply dismiss the fanciful ideas of some under-educated philosophers who couldn't distinguish an axiom from a lemma.

The very notion of a philosopher (or theologian, for that matter) ignorant in mathematics is absurd, and on this at least I know I would have the support of the Ancient Greek philosophers.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #116 on: May 22, 2007, 01:21:58 PM »

Quick question for GIC: We all came from non-existence before our mothers gave birth to us. So. Do you claim to have existence before you were actually created?
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #117 on: May 22, 2007, 07:43:49 PM »

A set of states is not a state, just as a set of numbers is not a number, it's a set.
Yes GiC, I know. That's the point. You have defined a set as being a set of things in a particular state, but that particular state cannot be a state. Non-existence cannot be the state of something because it is the state of nothing, i.e.,non-existence is not the state of anything.


It's not an empty set that's null, it's the content of the empty set. The set of the empty set {{}} has cardinality 1 and is essentially the set theory definition of 1, this is because the empty set is something with cardinality, but the contents of the empty set has cardinality 0.
  Yes, GiC, that's what I'm saying. The cardinality of the empty set precludes it from being "the set of non-existent things" because non-existence, by definition, has no existence. To speak of non-existence as something which exists (in your case, a "set with no elements") is self-contradictory. Such a proposition is meaningless and nonsensical because you cannot negate the concept of existence and yet speak of its (the negation’s) existence in the same proposition. The empty set cannot be equated with "the set of non-existent things" because "the set of non-existent things" cannot, by definition, exist, but the empty set does exist, therefore the empty set cannot be "the set of non-existent thiings". The empty set is not nothing it is something, it has existence, whereas non-existence is nothing and has no existence. There cannot be anything “outside” existence because any such existent would then become part of reality, i.e., existence, but if you equate non-existence with the empty set, you imagine non-existence as some "void" contained in an existing set, but the instant you do that, you are not describing non-existence, because you are describing an existent. Your conclusion that non-existence is contained within existence is the classic "fallacy of the reification of the zero" because you concretely have included non-existence in the set of existing things.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2007, 08:06:02 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #118 on: May 22, 2007, 08:20:36 PM »

Quick question for GIC: We all came from non-existence before our mothers gave birth to us. So. Do you claim to have existence before you were actually created?

Yes, and no, we have not existed as a created being before birth; yet we did exist in the mind of God, which is really the ultimate reality.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #119 on: May 22, 2007, 08:48:58 PM »

Again you give yourself a window for escape. Cheesy Very similar to George. You guys missed your calling. You should have become Politicians. This very issue was covered at the second council. That is when they added. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible,
PS: Please George. No more Greek interpetation. Shocked I'm very aware of what it states in the Greek text, Creed.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2007, 08:56:18 PM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #120 on: May 22, 2007, 09:54:51 PM »

Yes GiC, I know. That's the point. You have defined a set as being a set of things in a particular state, but that particular state cannot be a state. Non-existence cannot be the state of something because it is the state of nothing, i.e.,non-existence is not the state of anything.

And yet you speak of it as the negation of existence, philosophers have spoken of nothing or non-existence as the negation of existence for thousands of years. Why do you believe we can denote it linguistically (which we obviously can if we can speak of evil as non-existence), but not mathematically which is far more fundamental than language. The very act of arguing that something cannot be represented mathematically is the creation of a contradiction in said argument.

Quote
Yes, GiC, that's what I'm saying. The cardinality of the empty set precludes it from being "the set of non-existent things" because non-existence, by definition, has no existence. To speak of non-existence as something which exists (in your case, a "set with no elements") is self-contradictory.

It is not self-contradictory, infact that the empty set, which is (in theory, at least) existent, has no elements is essential to the existence and consistency of the natural numbers.

Quote
Such a proposition is meaningless and nonsensical because you cannot negate the concept of existence and yet speak of its (the negation’s) existence in the same proposition. The empty set cannot be equated with "the set of non-existent things" because "the set of non-existent things" cannot, by definition, exist, but the empty set does exist, therefore the empty set cannot be "the set of non-existent thiings".

Why do you belive set theory to be restricted merely to the existent? Set theory often deals with things, the existence of which is theoretically impossible from theoretical computers to theoretical shapes, which can never be constructed or drawn. Relative to our universe, they are non-existent, and will never be existent, but we talk about them and deal with them on a daily basis in mathematics. Yet I can, and have, taken the set of all computers that do not exist (it's simply the complement of the set of computers that do exist, which are turing equivalent and simpler machines, it's rather trivial to define) and worked with this set, these computers have many interesting results even though they simply do not exist. That's the wonderful thing about theory, it's not confined to existence, and set theory even goes beyond this. Sets can contain those things which do exist and do not exist, and other sets can contain sets that contain these sets. Set theory is beyond existence, infact it is infinitely beyond existence. If I can define something linguistically, I can make a set out of it, and even things I cannot define linguistically (nor, ultimately, really comprehend, as my mind is merely a turing machine) or even define the results of linguistically I can still put into sets (which is often how computers beyond turing machines are dealt with, we put the machine and its results in a set, then try to figure out what we can and what our small minds can understand about this machine through the use of the theory of computation which is heavily dependent on set theory). The existent and the non-existent are everyday topics in mathematics, and what one learns from mathematics, when one begins to deal with these things, is that they're not all that different from each other and both are studied in similar manners.

Quote
The empty set is not nothing it is something, it has existence, whereas non-existence is nothing and has no existence. There cannot be anything “outside” existence because any such existent would then become part of reality, i.e., existence, but if you equate non-existence with the empty set, you imagine non-existence as some "void" contained in an existing set, but the instant you do that, you are not describing non-existence, because you are describing an existent. Your conclusion that non-existence is contained within existence is the classic "fallacy of the reification of the zero" because you concretely have included non-existence in the set of existing things.

I am still confused why you are so obsessed with the empty set, I never defined non-existence as they empty set; I simply defined it as the complement of the set {x: x exists}, who ever said it has to be the empty set?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #121 on: May 23, 2007, 06:56:33 AM »

I am still confused why you are so obsessed with the empty set, I never defined non-existence as they empty set; I simply defined it as the complement of the set {x: x exists}, who ever said it has to be the empty set?

Are you serious, or can you really not see that
If   A = {x:x exists}
and B = Ac
Then B ⊄ A,
But hang on, we have a problem here, because if B ⊄ A, that means that B does not exist....

What if B = {}?
If B = {} that means that:
Since B = Ac = {} 
and B= Ac ⊄ A
Then we have the impossible situation that:
{} ⊄ A
Which we know to be impossible because:
∀A: {} ⊆ A
 
And if B ⊄ A then what are you talking about? Because in that case, B doesn't exist and therefore isn't contained in anything, not even in G (as your proof supposedly proves).

So either, I'm right that non-existence does not exist, and therefore cannot be contained in anything, OR you are right that non-existence is the empty set (which creates all the other problems I've already described).
So which is it?


(Aside: Of course, to show how you equate the empty set with non-existence, I could have simply pointed out your expression in your proof for the non-existence of God:
(1) G = {} (There is no God)
but that would have been too easy, and much less fun! Wink )
« Last Edit: May 24, 2007, 07:05:24 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #122 on: May 23, 2007, 05:05:08 PM »

Superior only in presentation, since I can simultaneously present diverse opinions that were derived by them from greater Philosophical truths. However, if you are not going to address the Philosophical arguments themselves, what's the point in even weighing in on the discussion? You have already admited that you refuse to discuss the substance so obviously this fallacious path of mere appeals to authority will effect little save the wasting of our time.

I was never aware that truth in Orthodoxy was determined by innovative philosophical arguments and mathematical theorems, but rather the the Tradition of the Church, of which the fathers bear witness.

Justinian is really outclassed this one (truth be told, so is the oecumenical synod, but at least they had the wisdom to not speak too much on a subject there were not qualified to fully address); Justinian's anathemas stand against the preeminent eschatology of the early Church and are directly opposed to even greater Saints, thus they should not be applied too lightly.

This was not the preeminement eschatology of the early church and you have certainly not proved it to be such.

Your link isn't working, but independent of that the thesis is absurd. I cannot recall whether or not I actually read this part of the Metropolitan's book in the past, but I can say that what I did read of it was poorly written and the quality of the research was so poor it probably wouldn't be enough to pass a class in secondary school; you're not going to impress me, or anyone who's done research on even the most basic level, by citing it. St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian were the inheritors of the intellectual lineage of Athanasios and Didymus and before them Origen and Clement. If you read these people, you will see how the philosophy and theology flows and develops from one Generation to the next, the difference between Gregory the Theologian and Origen of Alexandria is not in their philosophy and the essence of their thought, it's in accidental and relatively insignificant details (which, incidentally, is what Constantinople II addresses).

All I see here is a string of ad hominem arguments and unsubstantiated assertions. BTW, earlier in this thread I reproduced quotes showing St. Athanasius' belief in the eternity of Hell.

I dont know where to start to dismiss these mostly irrelevant postings you found, but this is the problem with proof-texting, this list appears to have been composed by either someone who has not really read hese fathers and has no real understanding of their thought process, or by someone who is simply dishonest with a clear agenda. But I'll throw in a couple proof texts, more to demonstrate the absurdity of that particular method of argument than actually prove my thesis:

'Let these men then if they will, follow our way, which is Christ's way; but if they will not, let them go their own. Perhaps in it they will be baptized with Fire, in that last Baptism which is more painful and longer, which devours wood like grass, and consumes the stubble of every evil.' -- Gregory the Theologian, Oration 39 Section 19.

'Our Saviour has appointed two kinds of resurrection in the Apocalypse. ‘Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection,’ for such come to grace without the judgment.  As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved unto the second resurrection, these shall be disciplined until their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection.' -- Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Pslam I.

I don't see how these quotes need controvert what was reproduced earlier. These seem to me to refer only to the period before the general resurrection (this is especially true in the case of St. Ambrose). St. Gregory the Theologian's quotation is a bit more ambiguous, but should be seen in the light of the many quotations produced above which clearly speak of the eternity of Hell.

Of course, regardless of my epistemology, scripture does support my position:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

Scripture, properly understood, does not support your position.

St. John of Damascus, "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" Book IV, Chapter XIX - That God is not the cause of evils


Also see this article.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2007, 09:00:16 PM by Symeon » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,903


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #123 on: May 23, 2007, 10:50:30 PM »

Dear Demetrios,

I'm confused.  Are you in the belief that there will be some who will cease to exist if they do not repent?  Is that what eternal Hell is to you?

God bless.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #124 on: May 24, 2007, 09:32:09 AM »

Lets put it this way. Before one can suffer eternally, one must resurrect. Death can also be eternal.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2007, 09:36:36 AM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Tags: ROCOR judgment Hades universalism heresy heretical 
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.132 seconds with 61 queries.