 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/14/2011 11:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Interesting!
Millard Erickson is in it. And his view of the incarnation dissolves the Trinity for a spell. Sheesh.
Tom
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/15/2011 7:27 PM (GMT -6) | | From the Trinity Statement: [i]We have no precedent in our world for understanding how God can be one
and at the same time three. We mistake the nature of the Godhead by
positing three Persons in tandem, one eternally exercising authority
over the others as human chief executive officers exercise authority
over their subordinate staff.[/i] Maybe we have no precedent because there is no way such can be! See, Tom, this is why I was so adamant that we not box ourselves into such a constricting definition of the Trinity: you end up with three Gods, like it or not! I mean, what you have here, as I see it, are three "persons" sitting around the table discussing heaven and earth affairs, and yet the three are one. I can't see how you can get around that. Yeah, the three are one, but I can't see how that can be if there is absolutely no distinction, whatsoever, among the three. What, they all just think alike at the same time, no different thoughts about this, that or what have you? What's the point of that? Why does God have to exist like that? And what does that say for the meaning of "person" in a loving relationship among the three. I don't have the answers here, but this kind of dogmatic adherence to a definition of the Trinity doesn't help. You're the logic guy; break this down for us: [i]For
Athanasius, equality of attributes is the proof for equality of
substance (being). Lose the first and one loses the second. So he
declares of the Christ, “This is why He has equality with the Father by
titles expressive of unity, and what is said of the Father, is said in
Scripture of the Son also, all but his being called Father.” [][/i] Is Athanasdius supporting no distinction, whatsoever? No hierarchical order of any kind? Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2011 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/16/2011 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Dwayne, from the Orthodox website:
Since the being of the Holy Trinity is one, whatever the Father wills, the Son and the Holy Spirit will also. What the Father does, the Son and the Holy Spirit do also. There is no will and no action of God the Father which is not at the same time the will and action of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In Himself, in eternity, as well as towards the world in creation, revelation, incarnation, redemption, sanctification, and glorification—the will and action of the Trinity are one: from the divine Father, through the divine Son, in the divine Holy Spirit. Every action of God is the action of the Three. No one person of the Trinity acts independently of or in isolation from the others. The action of each is the action of all; the action of all is the action of each. And the divine action is essentially one.
--------------
So I guess the Father and Spirit incarnated as well as the Son. And I guess they were all crucified.
What exactly about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct? Distinct enough to affirm that they are not the same person? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/16/2011 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher said...
That was the whole purpose of my previous post in the other thread...to show that we DO have examples of BEINGS that are comprised of 0 PERSONS, and BEINGS comprised of 1 PERSON...the BEING is one, there we find the unitive principle...the number of persons per being varies even in examples that are readily before us. So, we are not wide of logic to affirm one being/three persons.
Hey, Asher,
Let me repeat back to you what I'm hearing: we know there is a being that is not a person, and we also know there is a being that is a person.
All that proves, as I see it, is that a being can be a person, but not two or more persons. In other words, just because a being can be a person and vice versa doesn't prove that a being can be two persons.
As we see it in daily life, what is a person if it isn't a being?
Further, my point wasn't that the Trinity isn't the case that there aren't three persons involved in the Godhead. Rather, it was (in this thread) that without some sort of distinction in a hierarchical format, the definition of the Trinity (as noted in the Trinity Statement) is too confining; one ends up towards the direction of three Gods.
In that other thread where we talked much about this, I was trying to make the point that the Godhead cannot be three separate persons in the sense that you and I are separate persons, which would be polytheism. But I do grant that however the Godhead exists as "persons" is the case. It's just that I don't see it as three separate entities/beings who can sit around a table, so to speak, and discuss world affairs. (Yet, again, how else is one to understand a person other than as a being?)
So, maybe you would say that the three persona in the Godhead are not three beings, but one being, with which I would agree (because it can be otherwise without polytheism creeping in), but it's not "logical" as you've suggested. Not as I see it, at least.
Thanks,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/16/2011 8:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: Let me repeat back to you what I'm hearing: we know there is a being that is not a person, and we also know there is a being that is a person.
Look, you can not believe it to be the case, but it absolutely IS a logical possibility. All that is needed for it to be a logical possibility is for BEING and PERSON to not be equivalent, which is proved by the examples given of BEINGS that are not PERSONS (like plants).
Starkman: All that proves, as I see it, is that a being can be a person, but not two or more persons. In other words, just because a being can be a person and vice versa doesn't prove that a being can be two persons.
It in no way proves or disproves anything about there being an actual BEING who is two or more PERSONS. What it does is underscore 1) the logical possibility and 2) give an example of a gradation showing variability in number of PERSONS per BEING...once we have that, are there any other reasons for believing there is a BEING who is three PERSONS...and many people's experience of God has been of the nature of Trinity (my own included)...and there remains the problem of love and communication that you did not address...how would you solve that problem?
Starkman: As we see it in daily life, what is a person if it isn't a being?
Somehow you lost me with this statement...PERSON and BEING are not synonyms. Do we find any instances of PERSONS that aren't BEINGS? No, it's absurd. Do we find any instances of BEINGS that aren't PERSONS? Yes, plants. To affirm about the PERSON/BEING that there can be ONLY one PERSON per BEING is to be caught in our own subjectivity. We humans are 1 PERSON / 1 BEING . Plants are 0 PERSON / 1 BEING . Could there be 3 PERSONS / 1 BEING? Logically, there could be. Is there any other reason to believe it? That's where you should be concentrating your firepower.
Starkman: Further, my point wasn't that the Trinity isn't the case that there aren't three persons involved in the Godhead. Rather, it was (in this thread) that without some sort of distinction in a hierarchical format, the definition of the Trinity (as noted in the Trinity Statement) is too confining; one ends up towards the direction of three Gods.
How does one NECESSARILY end up with three Gods...if the threeness is affirmed of Personhood and the "one God" is affirmed of Beinghood.
Starkman: In that other thread where we talked much about this, I was trying to make the point that the Godhead cannot be three separate persons in the sense that you and I are separate persons, which would be polytheism.
That's easily enough solved. You are a separate BEING than me, as well as a separate PERSON from me. The Father, Son, and Spirit are separate PERSONS from each other, but not separate BEINGS. You can't compare the separateness of you and I, to the Godhead. On one side of the comparison is 2 Persons and 2 Beings and on the other side of the comparison is 3 Persons and 1 Being.
Starkman: It's just that I don't see it as three separate entities/beings who can sit around a table, so to speak, and discuss world affairs.
Your trying to carry the analogy too far. Of course there is no sitting around a table, but there is definitely communication among the Three Persons. A higher order communication, no doubt...but not totally disanalogous to ourselves.
Starkman: So, maybe you would say that the three persona in the Godhead are not three beings, but one being, with which I would agree (because it can be otherwise without polytheism creeping in), but it's not "logical" as you've suggested. Not as I see it, at least.
You do understand that logic is not our own private sphere that we get to define as we see fit, right? Please point to exactly what is illogical. Again, there is a difference between actually believing something, and that thing being a logical possibility...but the Trinity is most definitely a logical possibility...whether you see it or not.Post Edited (Asher) : 12/16/2011 7:47:51 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2011 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
So I guess the Father and Spirit incarnated as well as the Son. And I guess they were all crucified.
What exactly about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct? Distinct enough to affirm that they are not the same person?
Let's make this simple. What is UNIQUE about each of the divine persons? Well...
1. The Father is the only uncreated person who is "unsourced source" of the Only Begotten Son.
2. The (Only Begotten) Son is the only uncreated person who incarnates, taking on human nature in Jesus.
3. The Spirit is the only uncreated person who is the "Paraclete" spoken of by the Only Begotten Son, Jesus.
AT THE SAME TIME...
"because of what and who they are—namely, uncreated, divine persons—they are undivided and perfectly united in their timeless, spaceless, sizeless, shapeless super-essential existence, as well as in their one divine life, knowledge, love, goodness, power, will, action, etc"
Rest of the quote...
Does that do it for you? Good solid biblical reasons to talk about the distinctiveness/uniqueness of the personal perspectives within the Trinity.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 12/17/2011 7:56:35 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/17/2011 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher,
First, I think we are totally miscommunicating. I do not deny the persons of the Trinity! Further, I agree with D's "let's make this simple" post (just above mine, if no one else has posted during the making of this post).
But you can assert all you want that it's logical to have three persons in one being all you want, but the fact is this: you can't demonstrate in any way other than to reference God. You, mean, and everyone else do not serve, in any capacity, as examples of three persons in one being. We are each ONE being as ONE person.
I'll say this again: I have not opposed the idea of the three persons of the Trinity. I simply wanted it clear that we CANNOT force the idea of "persons" within the Trinity to BE AS WE ARE: three separate, distinct persons, as in three separate people (beings). You may say, "Well, of course not," but that's my point! For with many evangelical discussions about the Trinity, this is exactly what one concludes while in the discussion: that there are three absolutely separate persons with no one as source or with no one hierarchically understood. That's polytheism talk. I'm sorry, but it is, regardless of what we may think we mean otherwise.
You HAVE to have some sort of hierarchical structure; there cannot be three co-existing persons ALL EQUAL IN EVERYTHING. Yes, the three are "eternal," but as has been pointed out in Orthodox belief, there is a Source. Now that HAS to mean something about the subordination of that which is not the source. You can disagree with that all you wish, but to say otherwise is polytheism. There simply cannot be three persons with absolutely no distinction. That's not just simple and plain common sense logic, Asher, that's fact!
Imagine three persons "talking" among each other with no Source or Hierarch. Who originates a thought? All of them? at the same time? I mean, work though that, and you don't have a loving relationship. you just have one "thought" coming from three persons simultaneously. How does one look at the other, so to speak, in "loving relationship" and see anything of relationship there? On the other hand, if there is a Source, and the others are in complete agreement at all times with that source, that can be loving relationship.
So, at this point, I've said all I can say. But I will say this again: I can agree with D's (most recent) post and put aside what I don't understand about the rest.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/17/2011 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | | | Asher: Do we find any instances of PERSONS that aren't BEINGS? No, it's absurd. Do we find any instances of BEINGS that aren't PERSONS? Yes, plants. To affirm about the PERSON/BEING that there can be ONLY one PERSON per BEING is to be caught in our own subjectivity. We humans are 1 PERSON / 1 BEING . Plants are 0 PERSON / 1 BEING . Could there be 3 PERSONS / 1 BEING? Logically, there could be. Is there any other reason to believe it? That's where you should be concentrating your firepower.
Jeff: Asher, I'm not following Starkman's exact objection either. But I think what you've said above hints at the problem of the traditional trinity. You ask:
"Do we find any instances of PERSONS that aren't BEINGS? No, it's absurd."
The question is, why is it absurd? Because the traditional model of the godhead posits precisely what seems absurd to me. According to that model, the persons QUA persons are not beings. Otherwise, you have multiple beings for multiple persons just like Starkman is saying.
So if the persons of the godhead QUA persons are not beings, then what else can the human mind conceive them to be other than beings, like all other persons? Attributes? Time? Space? Temporal relations? Spatial relations? Any kind of relation (like causality)?
This is the problem as I conceive of it. It seemingly forces us into positing an absurdity given the constraints of our categories of thought. That doesn't mean that it is a logical impossibility. But it does seem absurd to say the Father is an attribute or a distance.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/17/2011 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: So if the persons of the godhead QUA persons are not beings, then what else can the human mind conceive them to be other than beings, like all other persons?
This is the point of the gradation scale, even though you and Starkman are missing that point...
rock...existent object...do we want to refer to a rock as a being? Even if we do, like some continental philosophers, what we have is 0 PERSONS / 1 BEING
plant...0 PERSONS / 1 BEING
animals...0 PERSONS / 1 BEING ...even though we are moving in the direction of personhood with higher animals, do we want to refer to them as PERSONS?
humans...1 PERSON / 1 BEING
Now before we even bring in God to this...we already can see higher levels of functioning in the complete BEING at each level...a plant has attributes that simply are not there in a rock...a plant BEING is a more complex BEING than a rock.
And when we move from plant BEINGS to animal BEINGS, we see again higher level functioning, the BEING of an animal sustains a higher level of capability, and more complexity than the BEING of a plant can do.
Moving from animal BEINGS to human BEINGS...we see that the BEING of a human allows a MUCH increased complexity than the BEING of an animal...and part of that increased capacity is exactly that we have entered such complexity that the human BEING sustains what we call PERSONhood.
We see increased complexity all along this gradation...so why can we not posit of a BEING that is even higher than us, that its BEINGhood has the complex capacity of sustaining multiple PERSONS within its BEING? There is nothing illogical about that claim, the law of identity is intact. Is it difficult to conceive of exactly how such a BEING functions? Sure it is, I won't deny it. Which is exactly what I would expect to find out about a necessary BEING that is my and all other being's creator. Supra-rational? Sure. Irrational? Nope. If I can exhaustively define a being, I'm pretty sure I'm not talking about a GOD-BEING. So, now, we arrive at the point where we ask...are there any reasons to believe such a BEING actually exists? And that is a totally different question than the one "Is such a BEING logical?"
And here are some good reasons to think that such a BEING actually does exist...First, we have testimony of many people, that their encounter of God was both unitive and had threeness. From such we can posit a unitary BEING that exhibits multiple PERSONhood, in this case, three persons. I don't know who I have shared this with (Dwayne, for sure, not sure about anyone else) but I had an encounter with God in which Jesus stepped up to me, took me in his arms and we began dancing a waltz as Jesus sang to me...at a certain point in the music, there was increased tempo, and a whirling in circles, as I was passed back and forth between three persons, Jesus being the only one I "saw", I was being whirled too fast to make much out of the other two. but as I was passed back and forth between them all, each one kissed my cheek before they passed me to the next, this part of the music lasted probably 30 seconds. The entire experience lasted somewhere around 11 minutes. I understand that this is not empirically verifiable to anyone else, I only add it as testimony, let that stand for whatever value you want to ascribe to it. And finally, we have a theoretical problem that can be solved by the existence of such a BEING as the Trinity...the ascription of love and communication to the essence of God. The Trinity allows for this essence, completely unitive expressions of God do not.
In summary:
no logical constraints against believing in the Trinity
testimony of early church tradition, the Bible, etc...meaning multiple persons testimonies of experiencing God as a unity of three.
my own experience...just one more testimony for you...but for me it pretty much locks the Trinity as existent.
the solution to a huge theoretical problem
How do you (Jeff and Starkman) explain love and communication with regard to God? Are they capacities in the essence of God, or are they capacities that were discovered by God? If we want to posit them of His essence, viola! There's the Trinity. Otherwise, you have some explaining to do. In short, the Trinity is more parsimonious than any other explanation. Wow, Jeff! Everyone is piling on to your favorite concept. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/17/2011 9:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: And finally, we have a theoretical problem that can be solved by the existence of such a BEING as the Trinity...the ascription of love and communication to the essence of God. The Trinity allows for this essence, completely unitive expressions of God do not.
In summary:
no logical constraints against believing in the Trinity
testimony of early church tradition, the Bible, etc...meaning multiple persons testimonies of experiencing God as a unity of three.
my own experience...just one more testimony for you...but for me it pretty much locks the Trinity as existent.
the solution to a huge theoretical problem
How do you (Jeff and Starkman) explain love and communication with regard to God? Are they capacities in the essence of God, or are they capacities that were discovered by God? If we want to posit them of His essence, viola! There's the Trinity. Otherwise, you have some explaining to do. In short, the Trinity is more parsimonious than any other explanation. Wow, Jeff! Everyone is piling on to your favorite concept.
Jeff: First of all, parsimony doesn't enter the equation until you have 2 or more LOGICALLY POSSIBLE/CONCEIVABLE explanations. You're claiming we only have one. I'm claiming we only have one acceptable one. So parsimony has nothing to do with it. I would agree that it is logically possible THAT a person per se might not BE a being, as you claim.
But for one like myself who defines persons in all other instances as beings, there is no non-dogmatic reason to define a person as a non-being just to dogmatically insist that divine persons are attributes, relations, reference frames or something supra-categorical. To appeal to the supra-categorical is to do something other than to conceive or define. To say a being is an attribute doesn't explain how the person QUA person accounts for extant, contingent beings.
In short, I see no problem with conceiving of the persons of the godhead as separate necessary beings. I also don't see how we can say that loving relationality can not be essential to them if they are distinct beings? Won't it one day be essential for us once we've partaken of the divine nature? And won't we still be distinct beings at that time?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/17/2011 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Stark,
No unqualified language can speak truthfully of God. Does that help?
WhatEVER terms we use to express the distinction between and unity of F, S, and SP, we'll have to do a lot of work qualifying them. We can't just say they're "persons" and walk away. But the early/Orthodox Church has never thought we could do this. And the Creeds weren't intended to be unqualified pronouncements which folks could repeat without being discipled into their confession with lengthy catechism.
So I'm struggling to see you point. Is it just to say, "Hey, no term is gonna work perfectly, so let's be careful?" Is that's it, then I'm with you. But if you really have a problem with the term "person" (doesn't seem you do if you're OK with Dwayne's articulation), then I'd say that we can't deny F, S, and SP are persons and just walk away thinking our unqualified denial speaks truthfully. We can't even call them "one being" and walk away without qualification. For better or worse, "person" is the highest term we have under which to conceive of F, S, and SP in their distinctiveness. Would you agree? If not, what term would you use to describe them in their distinction?
Tom
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg BoydPost Edited (Tom) : 12/19/2011 7:25:18 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/17/2011 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: First of all, parsimony doesn't enter the equation until you have 2 or more LOGICALLY POSSIBLE/CONCEIVABLE explanations. You're claiming we only have one. I'm claiming we only have one acceptable one.
I made no such claim. I am aware of your belief that the three are separate beings, that was the other option in play here. I'm saying that your option creates more problems than it solves. What? We have three distinct everlasting Beings, all self explanatory? Are they all three necessary? All contingent beings are ipso facto AFTER whatever is necessary. So, are all three of your Beings necessary? Not united from the beginning, or even cooperative. If they are distinct Beings, there would first have had to have been a stage where they learned to communicate with each other, then negotiated a community, etc. Three distinct everlasting beings is a tragically flawed outing.
Jeff: I would agree that it is logically possible THAT a person per se might not BE a being, as you claim.
But for one like myself who defines persons in all other instances as beings, there is no non-dogmatic reason to define a person as a non-being
Sometimes I am just amazed at how you can't understand the things I say:
I did not say "a person per se might not BE a being" nor did I define a person as a non-being. Jeff, come on now. Everyone else, Tom...is it not clear from what I wrote that I intend that all three persons of the Trinity are of the SAME being. They each have Being within the same Being...it's the personhood that is distinct, the beinghood is the same, of the same essence. Sheesh!
Jeff: To appeal to the supra-categorical is to do something other than to conceive or define.
No, I only appealed to the supra-categorical to show that the supra-categorical is not the same as irrational. Starkman states that the Trinity is not logical, supra-rational is something one can't define, yes...but it is not something that is ir-rational...like saying God is 1 being and God is three beings...or saying God is 1 person and God is 3 persons...anyone who affirms either thing is not appealing to the supra-rational, they are appealing to the irrational. I'm only pointing out by that ONE point that there is nothing about the Trinity that is illogical and irrational...1 being and 3 persons does not contravene the law of identity...it doesn't prove the Trinity actually exists, and I said no such thing...it does leave the concept intact and open to further scrutiny, which is exactly what I said.
Jeff: I also don't see how we can say that loving relationality can not be essential to them if they are distinct beings?
I am dumbfounded! You are confused about something somewhere. Let's see...3 distinct beings...are they each necessary beings?...How are they everlastingly related in love if they are everlastingly distinct?...Look, we want to say that there is something distinct, and something the same about them. If we place the distinction at the level of their being, we have huge problems. How did they even know how to communicate with each other?
Jeff: Won't it one day be essential for us once we've partaken of the divine nature? And won't we still be distinct beings at that time?
1) We are created in the image of God, any attribute we have is first there. You can't completely explain God by starting with us 2) Can an essence change? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/17/2011 10:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: I did not say "a person per se might not BE a being" nor did I define a person as a non-being. Jeff, come on now. Everyone else, Tom...is it not clear from what I wrote that I intend that all three persons of the Trinity are of the SAME being. They each have Being within the same Being...it's the personhood that is distinct, the beinghood is the same, of the same essence. Sheesh!
Jeff: OK. Let's go back to my original language. A person QUA person is NOT necessarily a being per traditional trinitarianism. You do concede that much, right? That's all I'm saying. And that's what makes the rest of my above post coherent, as far as I can tell.
Jeff: Won't it one day be essential for us once we've partaken of the divine nature? And won't we still be distinct beings at that time?
Asher: 1) We are created in the image of God, any attribute we have is first there. You can't completely explain God by starting with us 2) Can an essence change?
Jeff: But what difference does is it make that ours only becomes permanent at a point in time? The point of contention is that an INHERENT property of harmony-loving sociality can not exist in DISTINCT beings. I'm not seeing how your distinction touches that point.
Asher: If we place the distinction at the level of their being, we have huge problems. How did they even know how to communicate with each other?
Jeff: An explanation is a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for an event, state of affairs, conclusion, etc. So how does three persons "residing" in one being EXPLAIN their knowledge of how to communicate with one another? I'm flat not seeing it.
Asher: What? We have three distinct everlasting Beings, all self explanatory? Are they all three necessary?
Jeff: I don't see how how necessary beings are self explanatory. Necessary beings, as I understand the term, don't NEED explaining. Because their existence isn't contingent.
Asher: All contingent beings are ipso facto AFTER whatever is necessary. So, are all three of your Beings necessary? Not united from the beginning, or even cooperative.
Jeff: They need not be united in BEING to be united in functional sociality. We will be one day Asher. And yet we'll be distinct beings. Distinction of being per se doesn't negate the possibility of inherent cooperative unified sociality.
Asher: If they are distinct Beings, there would first have had to have been a stage where they learned to communicate with each other, then negotiated a community, etc. Three distinct everlasting beings is a tragically flawed outing.
Jeff: Again, back to the definition of an explanation. How does the fact that divine persons QUA persons are not beings constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for the conclusion that they know how to communicate without learning? You're asserting conclusions that don't seem to be entailed in your explicit premises.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 12/17/2011 9:18:23 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:31 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|