Contradiction: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill

[John Mullally]

If you know that, then present the two propositions as requested in this OP. Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ____.

Proposition P2 = ____.

Obviously you want to constrain the propositions as to pertaining to your title post: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, and Determinism. But then you are unhappy when others include one of those single words as a proposition. Perhaps like Jesus's first century opponents you are fishing for weak statements to attack. Can you say HYPOCRISY?

This thread demonstrates that Calvinism is weak as your best argument relies on others saying something weak (you asking for propositions) you can glom onto and attack. How about a fair fight where you make an assertion and others like myself have an opportunity to counter. If the word of God supports what you assert, you would have no fear of doing so. But as you know the word of God does not support Calvinism, otherwise you would not be using such timid methods.

 

[tonychanyt]

Obviously you want to constrain the propositions as to pertaining to your title post:

How?

 

[John Mullally]

Obviously you want to constrain the propositions as to pertaining to your title post: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, and Determinism. But then you are unhappy when others include one of those single words as a proposition. Perhaps like Jesus's first century opponents you are fishing for weak statements to attack. Can you say HYPOCRISY?

This thread demonstrates that Calvinism is weak as your best argument relies on others saying something weak (you asking for propositions) you can glom onto and attack. How about a fair fight where you make an assertion and others like myself have an opportunity to counter. If the word of God supports what you assert, you would have no fear of doing so. But as you know the word of God does not support Calvinism, otherwise you would not be using such timid methods.

How?

You are the OP, you criticize myself and others as to not answering your request which purposely remains vague even though I have asked for clarification and examples.

Sadly this is a common tactic among Calvinists who dare not argue even from their proof-text scriptures as they well know they will be smoked from the same scriptures. Instead you and your other equally vacuous fellow Calvinists propose vague guessing-game requests hoping to hop onto some poor argument from a candidate new-believer (Matthew 23:15). It is the best tactic you and your Calvinist accomplices can do. As you dare not assert any of your Calvinist assertions (such as points in TULIP) as you know you will be smoked from scripture. Come Out!

 

[tonychanyt]

You are the OP, you criticize myself and others as to not answering your request which purposely remains vague even though I have asked for clarification and examples.

What is so vague about the following:

Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ____.

Proposition P2 = ____.

Can you fill in the blanks?

 

[Fervent]

P1: God micromanages the universe, deciding every aspect including the decisions that all humans will make.
P2: Humans bear responsibility for their actions.

 

[tonychanyt]

P1: God micromanages the universe, deciding every aspect including the decisions that all humans will make.
P2: Humans bear responsibility for their actions.

There is no contradiction between P1 and P2 according to First-Order Logic.

 

[Fervent]

There is no contradiction between P1 and P2 according to First-Order Logic.

can you prove that?

 

[tonychanyt]

can you prove that?

P2: Humans bear responsibility for their actions.

Let P3 = Humans do not bear responsibility for their actions.

P3 ≠ ¬P1

Therefore P1 and P2 do not contradict.

 

[Fervent]

P2: Humans bear responsibility for their actions.

Let P3 = Humans do not bear responsibility for their actions.

P3 ≠ ¬P1

Therefore P1 and P2 do not contradict.

That's not a proof, simply an assertion.

 

[John Mullally]

What is so vague about the following:

Fill in the blanks:

Proposition P1 = ____.

Proposition P2 = ____.

Can you fill in the blanks?

Your OP seems to limit the propositions to the following:

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill​

​

But then later you state such single word propositions do not qualify. We are not mind readers. I hate guessing games. How about making your own assertions and let others critique. Obviously you cannot do that as scripture is against Calvinism.

Who can know for sure as upon request you fail to meaningfully clarify. Sorry, I believe you are purposefully vague in your request as you want to trap others. How about transparency - what do you have to hide?

 

[tonychanyt]

That's not a proof, simply an assertion.

Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

 

[Fervent]

Are you familiar with First-Order Logic?

Familiar enough, especially in its dependence on propositional logic. Without explicit axioms from which it is working, its of no use. Especially your abuse of it in which the only way for two propositions to contradict is if one is the exact negation of the other, which is preposterous.

 

[tonychanyt]

Your OP seems to limit the propositions to the following:

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill​

​

i.e., propositions related to the following: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill.

Fill in the blanks:

A proposition is ___.

Can you do that?

 

[tonychanyt]

Familiar enough, especially in its dependence on propositional logic.

Then please point out the misstep in my proof according to the syntax of FOL or propositional logic if you prefer.

 

[Fervent]

Then please point out the misstep in my proof according to the syntax of FOL or propositional logic if you prefer.

I already pointed out the misstep, since your "proof" is simply an assertion that P1 is not P3 rather than a demonstration that P1 and P3 are incompatible. It's preposterous to claim that only an exact negation is contradictory, and invalidates the whole concept of requiring to prove as much.

 

[John Mullally]

i.e., propositions related to the following: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Predestination, Determinism vs Freewill.

Fill in the blanks:

A proposition is ___.

Can you do that?

No. I gave you Determinism and Free Will as contrary propositions in Post 23 and you dismissed my analysis. Enough of your hypocrisy (pretending to ask for knowledge, but looking to trap, like the Pharisees) How about you making assertions and let us judge? You started the thread, the onus is on you. Why demand from others what you are unwilling to reciprocate? Snake?

 

[tonychanyt]

No. I gave you Determinism and Free Will as contrary propositions

These are not propositions. Do you know what a proposition is?

 

[tonychanyt]

I already pointed out the misstep, since your "proof" is simply an assertion that P1 is not P3 rather than a demonstration that P1 and P3 are incompatible. It's preposterous to claim that only an exact negation is contradictory, and invalidates the whole concept of requiring to prove as much.

We are talking about direct contradictions. See the OP.

Also, do me a favor: Can you explain to John Mullally what a proposition is?

 

[Fervent]

We are talking about direct contradictions. See the OP.

Also, do me a favor: Can you explain to John Mullally what a proposition is?

That's a specious distinction, and the invocation of "first order logic" is nothing more than window dressing in that case. Propositions don't have to be exact negations to be contradictory, so all you seem to be aiming at is a tautological contradiction which is exactly useless.

 

[John Mullally]

These are not propositions. Do you know what a proposition is?

The "free will: and "determinism" are terms you included in your title. Per post 23, which you repudiated, either men have "free will" or their every action is "determined" by God. I will not play your Calvinist guessing games!

How about you making your Calvinist assertions and let us answer from scripture; I think you won't do that because you know you will be smoked. Its time to end your hypocrisy. Come out and be transparent! What you said in Post 34 is a lie as we all agree to that. Again, come out and be transparent! What do you have to fear other than the truth?