Samael to Haverner:
"'...if you do not believe in God, which you claim not to, it is inconsistent to believe in devils. Not strictly illogical, but inconsistent.'" (p. 174)
Hold on there, Samael. Are consistency, logic and "strict" logic different?
Logic is the consistency between propositions without which we would not succeed in saying anything. Thus, imagine that someone, delivering a talk on Greek philosophy, begins by saying that Socrates was executed in 399 BC, ends by saying that Socrates was executed in 299 BC, and, when asked which is the right date, replies, "I have contradicted myself but this does not matter because I transcend logic." First, no one ever does say this. Anyone caught out in a verbal contradiction apologizes and corrects it or maybe gets embarrassed and tries to deny that he said it but everyone accepts that such contradictions are a problem and objects when others perpetrate them. Secondly, if anyone ever did claim that he was fully entitled to contradict himself, then he would not succeed in telling us when Socrates was executed (or whatever other proposition he had first stated, then negated.)
Sf scenario: Socrates is executed in 399 BC, resurrected, given an anti-age treatment, lives until 299 BC and is executed again then. Yes, that would be consistent if it could happen although it is not the kind of history that we are living in. However, the usual, and by far the simpler, explanation of someone saying, "399 BC," then "299 BC," is that it was a slip of the tongue.
God is a supreme being. Devils are evil spirits. Either can exist without the other.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Wait up a bit! You wrote: "God is a supreme being. Devils are evil spirits. Either can exist without the other. I agree God, being omnipotent, can exist without the demons. But how can the devils exist without God having been their Creator and first cause? Devils, being created spirits (along with the good angels, of course) did not exist from all eternity as uncreated beings. At some point in time they came to exist, to be created. Which means the angels needed God before they could have existed at all.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean:
In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths, you're correct: the devils can't exist without a Creator. But in beliefs that don't consider there to have been a Creator, evil beings/spirits can just come into existence, the same way good ones do. That, I think, is what Paul was getting at.
Both,
Yes, indeed. A devil is an evil discorporate intelligence. There is nothing in the meanings of the words, "evil," "discorporate" or "intelligence" that entails "has to have been created."
Jains believe that souls and matter are uncreated, beginningless and endless. Souls become materially embodied, then are liberated.
Paul.
Kaor, DAVID and Paul!
David: what you said about the Jewish/Christian view of angels is correct (not sure what Islamic theology says). But I simply don't believe spirits of any kind can just suddenly pop into existence.
Paul: and I have to disagree with the Jains. I don't believe "matter" simply existed from all eternity and was uncreated. And the same with what they believe about souls. Nor is it somehow so bad for a soul to be embodied in matter that it's liberating to be released from it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you do not believe either in spontaneous uncreated existences or in beginningless souls and matter but the only logical point is that these ideas are not self-contradictory.
Paul.
Logic is not about which propositions any particular individual accepts or finds plausible. It is only about which propositions are mutually consistent. Thus, e.g.:
IF everyone is either saved or damned;
IF only Evangelicals are saved;
THEN everyone else is damned.
These propositions are logically consistent. Many of us do not accept the premises (the two IFs) and therefore do not accept the conclusion (the THEN) but this does not involve us in denying the logical consistency of the three propositions.
I am trying to put this question to rest. There is a difference between discussing (i) whether two or more propositions are mutually consistent and (ii) whether any of us believes one or other of those propositions to be true. If someone responds to a discussion of (i) by discussing (ii), then maybe he is missing the point of clarifying what "logic" means?
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies for again missing your point! You were not talking about the SUBJECT of the line I quoted from you. You were discussing the FORM or manner of proposing an idea.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment