One and Many and Jason
Jason writes,
I'd partly agree with you, in that an answer can be found in the Trinity. But much like the end of the movie our answers do not have to be mutually exclusive.
I would strengthen the claim that an answer can only be found in the Trinity. I am open for an example of another answer, but I fear that it will ultimately fail. The Trinity is the one and only solution precisely because there are no other examples of how it is that unity and diversity exist in perfect harmony. Pantheisms fail in that they can only have the One. Materialism fails because there can only be the Many. To a lesser degree, whatever comes in between won't make it; they either lean more toward the one or more toward the many. In short, close but no cigar.
As to mutually exclusive answers, if the Trinity is the only answer, it follows that the answer is mutually exclusive. Anything denying this claim would therefore be false. This shouldn't be a problem, as mutually exclusiveness is presupposed in the claim that 'answers do not have to be mutually exclusive'. It assumes that the claim, 'answers do have to be mutually exclusive' is false.
I'd partly agree with you, in that an answer can be found in the Trinity. But much like the end of the movie our answers do not have to be mutually exclusive.
I would strengthen the claim that an answer can only be found in the Trinity. I am open for an example of another answer, but I fear that it will ultimately fail. The Trinity is the one and only solution precisely because there are no other examples of how it is that unity and diversity exist in perfect harmony. Pantheisms fail in that they can only have the One. Materialism fails because there can only be the Many. To a lesser degree, whatever comes in between won't make it; they either lean more toward the one or more toward the many. In short, close but no cigar.
As to mutually exclusive answers, if the Trinity is the only answer, it follows that the answer is mutually exclusive. Anything denying this claim would therefore be false. This shouldn't be a problem, as mutually exclusiveness is presupposed in the claim that 'answers do not have to be mutually exclusive'. It assumes that the claim, 'answers do have to be mutually exclusive' is false.
posted by Josh at 8:01 PM
3 Comments:
if you were to read your book aloud on CD (or have James Earl Jones or Charlton Hestin read it),
I'd find someone who bought the CD and burn it off them
Is that supposed to refute Josh, or Van Til? I think both would say that unity and diversity are fundamental, hence the Trinity. I think that was the point of what Josh was saying. Pantheism regards unity as the most fundamental reality, just as materialism does the many. Josh's and Van Til's idea, I think is that only in the Trinity can you have both unity and diversity as fundamental reality, a reality at harmony with itself.
Please, forgive my plebian focus of thought.
Okay, the debate of prolegomena aside I’m to understand you’re making the argument that there can be only one source for an answer to purpose. That one source being the harmony of unity and diversity, the ultimate example of why it isn’t only the one or only the many that we should seek to find reason for being but the blending of both in perfect harmony? And my supposition being that “an” answer could lie in the convergence of multiple points of view, even those on opposing sides? That pill tastes a little irony.
Ah, I see, but the Trinity is the only source that embodies such a harmony of divergent existence because you believe it so. And because of that, the reasons for being can only stem from the Trinity. But what if you don’t believe that? Then where does one seek a reason for living? And if they find an answer outside of the Trinity, though false to you, but true to them then the Trinity wasn’t the only source for an answer?
Tereo-Kensai…
Wait, wait, wait… after all that drawn out rational discussion of being one thing precludes you from being another (which is fine if you have A and not A, but what about B, C, and D? I guess you meant being one thing you can’t be its opposite; can’t be unified and diversified at the same time) at the end the conclusion is but because God is God and He can do anything, He is able to make being unified and diverse the same thing but not? One thing and its opposite existing as one but as two distinct entities? So is the Trinity three distinct embodiments separate from the source or derivatives of the source or both?
Post a Comment
<< Home