Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!dartvax!dnc
From: dnc@dartvax.UUCP (David Crespo)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.women
Subject: Re: the gender of God
Message-ID: <2365@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 14:58:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.2365
Posted: Tue Sep  4 14:58:07 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Sep-84 04:08:24 EDT
References: <465@rdin.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College
Lines: 92

~h
if god is personal he has love
god is not personal
 implies god does not have love
 
p impplies q
not p
 implies not q
 
logic faulty
p implies q
 does not imply
not p implies not q
 
however 
p implies q
q implies p
not p
 does ! imply
not q
 
since not (not q) would imply q would imply p, a contradiction
 
thus
if god has love then he is personal
must be examined 
 
however we know that god has love
 
p -> q
p
ooops
 
p -> q
~p
q
 
is our given set
 
thus ~p may not imply ~q
or not (q implies p) 
or q must not imply p
 
this does not mean that 
q implies not p 
except it does mean that: if q, then not p, since not p. 
not q implies not p may be true, but only if
q implies not p as well.  
 
if god is personal then god has love


god has love

god is not personal
 
thus 
if god is not personal then god has love 
 
god has love whether or not he is personal
 
which by assumption, he is not, though it does not matter
 
unless: god does not have love!
p->q
not q
 implies not p
 
it all depends on what you want 
god to be personal or not
god to have love or not
 
Except that if he does not have love, he may not be personal
   (if his being personal implies his having love)
 
I'll buy that! 
 
(unless we progress to more complicated 
multivalue logics (as the quantum mechanist are
doing right now)
in which case 
p and not p 
is true
is possible 
 
but i think 
no one
wants 
to get into 
that.
 
bye.