CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>>    It is one thing to say that there is knowledge outside
>>of the realm of Aristotelian logic, but the moment one
>>makes Aristotelian statements, one must be bound by it, otherwise
>>one is merely spewing inconsistent babble.

>>    All dogs have 4 legs.
>>    My dog Joey has 2 legs.

>>    One or both sentences MUST be wrong.

>>    Homer

>Explain ARistotelian states. Do you mean statements? And if so, what does
>that mean?

     Statements, yes.  typo

     If you make a statement like,

     All dogs have 4 legs.

     You have entered into an Aristotelian arena where you must
continue to abide by the rules.

     All dogs have 4 legs means is not true that some dogs have 3
     If someone says "All dogs have 4 legs AND my dog has 3 legs", then you
never know what the person means when they say anything.

     Some people will assert that all IS statements, any statment that
asserts anything is true or is not true, are themselves false.

     But notice that the statement that all IS statments are false is
an IS statement, so is self denying.
     So these people are non functional.

     Or some will say A is both true and not true at the same time

     It is probably true that as one gets high on the tone scale, ALL
IS statements become absurd, but notice that assertion is an IS
statement.  But assuming that this is possible, then at that high
level all IS statements are of limited value and truth INCLUDING the
IS statement that "All things that flow from God are Good." which
becomes just as valueless and absurd as any other IS statement.

>In the other thread, you attempted to couch your presentation in an
>Aristotelian syllogistic form.  The conclusion from that attempt did not
>sit well with me. I abandoned the conclusion-drawing from the
>syllogism-process, and simply stated a series of propositions I understand
>to be true. 

     1.) All that flows from God is Good.
     2.) "Man that can do bad" flows from God.
     3.) "Man that can do bad" is not Good.
     Your propositions are self contradictory, thus they say nothing.

     You also continue to weasel endlessly about the subject of

     If I create a creation that can itself create things, and I know
before hand that this creation can create bad things, and I create it
so that it CAN create bad things, then *I* am fully responsible and
accountable for the bad things that my creation creates.  This is
absolute and unarguable.  No human would dare say otherwise.

     This also applies to God.

     If God makes man knowing that man can do bad, and creates in man
the ability to do bad, and man does bad, then God is responsible and
accountable for that bad.  He didn't have to create man, he didn't
have to give man the ability to do bad, he KNEW what would happen if
he did, and so there is no escaping the full responsibility in the

     Whether man is ALSO responsible does not in any way detract from
the FULL responsibility of God for the result of his knowing willing
creation with full awareness of the consequences.
     I am made in the image of God, if *I* am responsible for my
creation's creations, then so is God.
     Why should I be held to a higher standard of responsibility than

     Your inability to deal with these issues in a straight forward
manner, has hounded our relationship since the beginning.  Since you
deny the validity or usefulness of logic, yet continue to use logical
propositions in your descriptions of reality, I can only conclude that
at no time have you ever said anything that actually was meaningful.
     It may have made sense at the time, just as it makes sense when
you say "All dogs have 4 legs", but later when I hear "And my dog has
3 legs", I know that whatever you meant by those two sentences was
certainly not what I nor anyone else meant by them.

     Thus people who deny the validity and usefulness of logic, people
with broken minds, can carry on seemingly meaningful conversations
with others, even reach apparent agreements, but the others are
talking with a broken mind that is merely spewing phrases unrelated to
each other no matter the apparent coherency of the presentation.

     Once the internal inconsistencies are spotted in the spew, one
takes the presenter to task for them, if the presenter weasels and
refuses to come clean and ethical about their logic, then one condemns
the presenter's mind as broken and an abomination before God and be
done with them.
     Broken minds and the willful use of illogic in the pretense to
wisdom is a matter of criminal ethics.

     Basically in a different place and different time, broken minds
that refuse to fix, or are unable to fix, should be executed and
removed as they are a pox upon the face of existence, and probably the
sum total source of what is wrong with life on Earth.
>- CBW

Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,  Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com