I think ive already proven your circle-square anaology to be fallacious based on the fact its an amphiboly.
Not yet. I think your proof consisted of " it’s logically falicious to use because its an amphiboly" exclamation mark, exclamation mark.
Exactly, and Christ was neither merely a human or merely God, and that’s why you’re argument is based on a false dilemma.
Oh ok, so in your view Christ was neither completely human nor completely Divine? He was a little of both? Our whole discussion is on how the divine can coexist with anything that is not divine without losing one of its divine attributes, so I'd like to hear more about this divine-non-divine combination.
Well this type of "co-existence" has now formed a more "complex" type of shape, in which such a question cannot be answered. Whats your point?
They are still co-existent. Transposed? Well fine...transposed to co-exist.
Big deal.
We've designed a new complex shape? So how many people walking into a room would look at our new shape and say "wow, that is both completely square and completely circle"
I cant believe you would’ve raised that question with a straight face. God’s eternality, omnipotence, etc do not define His essence/substance/nature, they are characteristics of God. Who said he had equals? Don’t be ridiculous. The issue of "What" god is, is something i dont think any theologian can answer, but defining the nature of God with the attributes He possesses is not logical.
So describe the nature of God without using His attributes. His attributes are how we KNOW His nature and distinguish Him.
I am telling you that it is logically fallicoious to do that because His attributes do not define His nature, rather his nature defines his attributes.
Ok good, so walk us through this. Give me a few true statements about God's nature and show me how you distinguish them from His divine attributes.
if the car chooses (yes lets assume this car has a will) not to be self-propelled and rather chooses to go down a hill submitting to the effects of gravity, does this mean it is no longer a car? No because the fact a car is self-propellent does not define its "nature" - functional design, it defines the attributes of the car.
You're still dwindling on functionality, bro. You're talking about what the car does instead of what it is. The better question is, how many things can you remove from the car before people cease to call it a car? Otherwise, you can eat on a car, sit on a car, ride a car on water, you're just using it for different things.
We already agreed earlier that appealing to natural revelation is not an adequate method of describing the actions of a complex infinite being, so what do you do once I find a generally sufficient example (which on the macroscopic level serves my purpose just fine) to describe the hypostatic union? You delve into it and try disprove if with your technicality by trying to analyse the reactions going on at an atomic level – hey your not fooling me man.
You're the one that decided to appeal to nature, which I don't recommend, then when you realize your example doesn't work, you get sad and start lashing out at me.
Lets say God wanted to place a piece of iron in the fire, without allowing the fire to affect the iron on any sort of level
Nice. And yes, God can do anything possible, especially something as simple as manipulating His creation. However, when you start talking about God voluntarily giving up His divinity, then you're back to the central problem.
Well in the same way did Christs divinity unite with his humanity.
Like here, you went from fire and iron (two creations, ok) to divinity and humanity (which involves the Divine necessarily foregoing some Divine attributes)
As for your little scientific commentary on fire too, you again have shown your desperation.
haha, bro relax don't get so stressed over this, you came up with a worldly example and couldn't relate it perfectly to God, it happens all the time with anthropomorphists.
Im not concerned with how fire interacts on its own, im concerned with the interaction of the fire with the iron – because our whole discussion is based on the union between the fire and iron and the effect this union has on their two "natures". The iron does not affect the “essence” of the fire, and if you take a sledge hammer and slam the crap out of the iron, the sledge hammer is only damaging the iron, yet the fire remains essentially present.
Fire doesn't have "an essence," it is not "one thing". It is a visible chemical REACTION.
you trying to patronize me bro? I don’t expect you to admit or accept anything, you’ve already done as I expected and started now to appeal to desperate measures to prove your point.
no bro, you're awesome, didn't mean to offend you at all, I was just posting a "how stuff works" link, and had no idea that this was an appeal to desperate measures. I just wanted to make sure we had the same definition of what fire was, since you were talking about how fire does not change when the iron goes in.
Peace and good luck