I CAN explain why we don't find them anywhere else in nature.
Do I need to piece by piece go into every sentence of yours here that I disagree with?
No, where we differ is spirituality being the only thing that seperates us.
"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement. It's not a dilemma for me. It works fine conceptually. The details are beyond us.
You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of the universal principle of identity. Hence, G = {F, S, H simultaneously} is preceded by A: A = A =. Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier simultaneously, wherein each element is a divine person. Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically? Yes. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion. But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity. Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well. But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory. I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms. If you use "God the Father . . ." on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.
Actually, either way is fine. The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless. Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability. In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically. That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions: the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.
Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom a set is not an element of itself for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic: to amplify and explore new possibilities.
But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken. But the only real concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory. Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise. I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before. Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.
I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)
So whether or not
A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
C. there is no such anything of any sort
Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.
We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.
The point is really do we agree how to act
and work together; what laws or language do we use
to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.
God's existence can be proven and is proven under the conventional standards of justification of organic/classical logic, ultimately premised on the universally self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity as derived from the contemplation of the problems of existence and origin.
What you're saying is false.
God’s existence simply cannot be proven in scientific terms because science if LIMITED to dealing with direct evidence about material things only. It's limitations have no bearing on the rational-empirical, evidentiary proofs for God's existence. What any given person decides to do with these proofs is subjective, but the substance of these proofs is not subjective.
What you're talking about is merely the distinction, in terms of ultimacy, between scientific theory, which is based on inferences derived from direct material evidence, and the logical proofs, which evince the cogency of an immaterial origin based on the same.
Science does not precede or have primacy over the rational and empirical facts of human cognition regarding the universally self-evident imperatives of existence and origin. You do not adequately understand what evidence and proofs are, what the difference is between subjective evidence and objective evidence, and what the difference is between direct evidence and indirect evidence. Also, you do not adequately understand the nature of scientific theories, which are inferred from direct physical evidence, albeit, as premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, which in and of itself is not scientifically falsifiable!
We define, we determine, we infer, we interpret, we decide.
Science doesn't do us; we do science. The limited utility of science doesn't dictate anything to anybody, but the thoughtless, the ignorant or the closed-minded. It is a tool used by us to deal with the material realm of being and nothing else but that. Philosophy deals with the definitions and delineations of metaphysics, and theology, the queen of the sciences, directly deals with the details of ultimate reality, the transcendent realm of being, the ground of all other existents. We need all three, ultimately premised on the affirmations of revealed religion.Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.
Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....
Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?
But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.
Hey, what can I say, I try! Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me.
Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.
Boss, I understand the dynamics of the psychology you're talking about. It's not rocket science. It has a name. It's called epistemological subjectivism/relativism, essentially, irrationalism. What you're really saying in the rest of the post outside the portion I quoted in the above to save space, is that human consciousness has primacy over the actual nature of any given thing all the way up to the cosmological order itself. Worse, according to your logic, human consciousness has primacy over ultimate existence itself, namely, over divine consciousness.
You don't really believe that. You just fail to connect the dots out of sheer contrariness, more at, out of sheer pride, the refusal to concede the silliness of your unexamined ideas, though you be so close to the truth.
I am not arguing number 1, not now, not ever, because I am not an irrationalist.
I do not hold, for obvious reasons, that human consciousness has primacy over existence as if a toad, for example, would suddenly turn into a bird because I decided in my head that the toad were a bird. Your failure to understand what I'm arguing, just as you somehow got it into your head that I was arguing spirituality to be something contrary or mysterious, is a symptom of your refusal to be objectively unbiased about anything. You can't even keep track of your own arguments, as number 1 is what you're arguing, not I.
Hence, in number 2 and number 4, you essentially argue that evidence is whatever one believes it to be. There is truth in that, but, of course, that’s not the point and never has been, and only an irrationalist would habitually fail to get the point or grasp the ultimately pertinent fact of reality about any given thing. The irrationalist is the most gullible of persons in the world, a danger to himself and everyone else.
Of course the veracity of evidence can be and is questioned all the time. How did you come to attribute the stupidity of the contrary to me? The issue is not what any given person accepts to be evidence, but whether or not any given person's alleged evidence for something actually proves the object!
The object! The object! The object!
And once again, you incessantly confuse yourself with your irrationalism: if one claims something to be evidence, they obviously accept it to be evidence. You’re not making a distinction in number 4. They're the same thing. From there we weigh the veracity of said evidence relative to the object.
Finally, Boss, the atheist does accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence. Your allegation to the contrary has been incontrovertibly falsified by the only justifiable and universally objective standard, namely, the principle of identity. The judge, i.e., the unassailable principle of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, has ruled your lunacy inadmissible evidence. In this case, the one before the court, your evidence has no relevancy, as it does not and cannot prove your object.
Once again, the court's finds that the atheist does accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence, regardless of what any given nitwit says, whether that nitwit be an atheist or not. It is also the court's finding that the latter suffer from or form of cognitive psychosis or cognitive sociopathy. They are pathologically deluded, or they are pathological liars. Intellectually honest atheists concede this axiomatic, tautological fact of human cognition regarding this imperative of the problem of origin, for their concession inhabits the term atheist. They know and believe that!
What they do not believe is that the evidence for the existence of God, namely, the existence of the universe, proves the fact of the object or the fact of the substance of the idea of God that’s in their heads due to the evidence for God’s existence, namely, the existence of the universe.
Boss! Are you always so gullible or deluded, always so easily deceived, or are you a sociopath? In any event, you are duly ordered to pay a troll penalty of mea culpa and to cease and desist with this lunacy. The court also recommends no less than 90 days of rehab in a substance abuse program of your choice.
I like Boss and lots of the stuff he says is really good, I just don't know why he lets the atheists fool him or lie to him. "Atheism" means that the atheist sees the universe as the evidence for God's existence, but just rejects this evidence as proof for God's existence. That's the definition of the word. It blows my mind that some people will trick themselves into believing the opposite of the obvious. 
