RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
September 26, 2018 at 10:47 am
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2018 at 10:50 am by polymath257.)
(September 26, 2018 at 10:05 am)SteveII Wrote:(September 26, 2018 at 8:36 am)polymath257 Wrote: OK, let's have some fun.
Which is greater? 1 or 100? Does that mean that God cannot be one?
Category error. We are talking about properties of a single being.
Quote:Which is greater? Working alone or working as a team? Does that mean that God cannot work alone?
Category error. We are talking about properties of a single being.
Quote:Which is greater? humility or egotism? Does that mean God must be humble?
Neither. A proper understanding of your position in relation to everything else in the universe is greater.
Quote:I'm sure there are many others.....
There are definitely more category errors...
Quote:
Yes, it is very much necessary *for there to be a concept*. You avoid the central issue: why do you think there is a single concept that encompasses all the others? All you have given is vague claims about certain properties being greater than others. But that isn't enough to establish your conclusion.
The ontology is that there are partial orders without greatest elements. [1]
The ontology is that there is no single way to merge partial orders in a consistent way. [1]
The ontology is that you don't have a concept from which to work. [2]
The epistemology is that you cannot know any of your claims are true. [3]
1. This is not math. The concept of 'greater than' is entirely coherent when discussing attributes of a conscious being. You have failed to give an example of a single attribute that we cannot postulate a 'greater than'. BTW, there is a whole world outside of math.
2. Something you assert and have not even given good reasons to believe even might be true.
3. I rely on revealed theology for a start. The rest is systematic theology/philosophy of religion--2 topics that are not *math*.
Well, relying on 'revealed theology' is the first, most basic mistake. There is no such thing. Just claims made by people to get power over others.
(September 26, 2018 at 9:47 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(September 26, 2018 at 9:35 am)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, I am claiming there is no coherent unified concept of 'greater'. There are many distinct, smaller concepts, but they are inconsistent with each other.
You don't seem to realize that there can be more than one operative concept of 'greater' in a discussion. And that they can give different answers on what is greater and what is lesser.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the concept of greater can be relative. Ok, I could agree with that. In this instance, you are talking about being greater in a different way. This doesn't make for a contradiction, or incoherence. That you are determining what is greater at all, seems to make your argument lesser!
Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.
Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?
The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.
This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.
