[Untellectual]

Originally Posted by Untellectual

Then you haven't examined the statement "God is logical" thoroughly.

I would love to talk more in the future. Thanks for your time. I'm sorry if I wasn't instructive enough. I can tell you think about what you say, even if I still don't know your purpose in saying what you have (the reasoning behind it, etc). Some things are just straightforward, but unless I have a reason it is difficult for me to repeat what someone else has said.

[Memento Mori]

Originally Posted by Stripe

What I've said can be boiled down to two things.
1. A thing is always itself. It can never not be what it is.
2. When presented with a claim there are only two rational responses. It is either true or false. There is no third option.

Ok. But the thread has evolved beyond tautology (aside from your insistence). As the Queens of the Stone Age song goes, "Go with the flow."

Originally Posted by Stripe

God can create matter where there was none before. I cannot show you how He did that.

In light of the fact of your lack of evidence, I'll deny. This also undercuts your argument that God acts in a rational way.

Originally Posted by Stripe

A theory would be nice, but some things you will never know. You should learn to deal with that.

Oh, ye of little faith. Science has made amazing leaps and bounds. Even the origins of the universe are coming unraveled.

Originally Posted by Stripe

That's right. I claim God is logical. You are free to either accept or reject that idea. I'm not going to make up any proof for you, but if you assert a third option I'm going to call you irrational.

I haven't introduced a "third option." In fact, by the very definition of your claim there can never be a "third option," just a new theory to replace your original claim. I deny the God is subject to logic (i.e., God is forced to act in only logical ways). So denying your original proposition, I propose God is not forced to act in a logic but may if He so wishes.

Originally Posted by Stripe

And bad at grammar.

Oh, spare me, thee of infinite wisdom! Wherefore affix my sins against the English language in the face of the such desperate apex of argument over the philosophy, physics, chemistry and logic of God?! Shall I return the stars to their creator and adjoin the wells of gravity for a singularity in which I could not escape to receive your forgiveness or move the sun to a more perfect state or perhaps, I should just give you a cookie for noticing a minor nuance in my speech. Don't be so pedantic. Or shall I point out all your grammar mistakes in the future and labor you to no end? Do not think you've not made your fair share of mistakes, which I have noticed but chose not to make apparent for the sake of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Stripe

He could make a promise and then not live up to that promise.

Well technically any unfulfilled scripture would fall into this category as of right now.

However for something with a little more... impossibility,

Ezekial 26:3-14 claims by God that Tyre shall take Nebuchadnezzar which never happened.

Here's a fun long paper on the matter.

Originally Posted by Stripe

He could call Himself bad.

Well depending on what you mean:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Originally Posted by Stripe

He could put someone in authority over Himself.

Hmm... Well 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

Originally Posted by Stripe

There's three ways He could deny Himself. I'm sure you can think of more...

Well you'll have to come up with more and you'll have to actually define it, since I still don't understand the complete concept. If you're suggesting that God is limited to the limits of God, then yeah, that's tautology and makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Not really. If I make a suggestion you are free to accept it or reject it. I'm not trying to prove much in this thread other than the simple fact that some things are absolutely true and cannot be not so.

Yeah, there are certain absolute truths to the universe. It's generally called a law (scientific). Gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and electromagnetic forces. In our universe it's a basic and intrinsic truth.

Originally Posted by Stripe

I think I've proved that. Not interested in proving anything else.

The conversation has evolved. Do you want me to make a thread about the God's logic when this thread is covering it just fine aside from you being obsessed with your tautology.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Is that a simple expression of opinion, like my idea, or have you some evidence?

Been there, done that. In the same way that gravity does not exist in the absence of the universe, logic needn't exist in the same situation. Where ever space-time doesn't extend is where the Laws of the universe stop.

Originally Posted by Stripe

I can't.

The gap between your claims and evidence is astounding as to be ridiculous. You have wholly discredited yourself with this very statement.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Memento Mori

In light of the fact of your lack of evidence, I'll deny.

Suit yourself.

This also undercuts your argument that God acts in a rational way.

Uh ... they are pretty much one and the same thing.

Oh, ye of little faith. Science has made amazing leaps and bounds. Even the origins of the universe are coming unraveled.

And yet there are some things you will never know.

I haven't introduced a "third option."

Yes you have. The question is, "Is God logical?" You are response is not, "Yes". Your response is not, "No". Yore response is a third option.

In fact, by the very definition of your claim there can never be a "third option,"

That's right.

just a new theory to replace your original claim.

Or you could dodge the question.

I deny the God is subject to logic (i.e., God is forced to act in only logical ways). So denying your original proposition, I propose God is not forced to act in a logic but may if He so wishes.

Which is all utter nonsense.

Oh, spare me, thee of infinite wisdom! Wherefore affix my sins against the English language in the face of the such desperate apex of argument over the philosophy, physics, chemistry and logic of God?! Shall I return the stars to their creator and adjoin the wells of gravity for a singularity in which I could not escape to receive your forgiveness or move the sun to a more perfect state or perhaps, I should just give you a cookie for noticing a minor nuance in my speech. Don't be so pedantic. Or shall I point out all your grammar mistakes in the future and labor you to no end? Do not think you've not made your fair share of mistakes, which I have noticed but chose not to make apparent for the sake of the discussion.

Well technically any unfulfilled scripture would fall into this category as of right now. However for something with a little more... impossibility, Ezekial 26:3-14 claims by God that Tyre shall take Nebuchadnezzar which never happened. [U RL="http ://www.infidel s.org/librar y/m odern/farrell _till/prophe cy.htm l"]Here[/U RL]'s a fun long paper on the matter. Well depending on what you mean: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Hmm... Well 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Well you'll have to come up with more and you'll have to actually define it, since I still don't understand the complete concept. If you're suggesting that God is limited to the limits of God, then yeah, that's tautology and makes perfect sense.

Gee, for not understanding you sure have a lot of answers.

Been there, done that. In the same way that gravity does not exist in the absence of the universe, logic needn't exist in the same situation. Where ever space-time doesn't extend is where the Laws of the universe stop.

This is no evidence. Gravity is an observed phenomenon. Logic is not. Gravity does not exist without matter. Logic may well do.

The gap between your claims and evidence is astounding as to be ridiculous. You have wholly discredited yourself with this very statement.

I rather think you have demanded evidence when there was never a need to.

[Memento Mori]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Uh ... they are pretty much one and the same thing.

That's a funny statement. It's like saying it's an approximate carbon copy. There's no such thing as an approximate carbon copy.

Originally Posted by Stripe

And yet there are some things you will never know.

You don't know that!

Originally Posted by Stripe

Yes you have. The question is, "Is God logical?" You are response is not, "Yes". Your response is not, "No". Yore response is a third option.

The response is no. Now, here's a new theory... (It's the same way science work.)

Originally Posted by Stripe

That's right.

I know.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Or you could dodge the question.

And yet for the sake of intellectual honesty, I don't.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Which is all utter nonsense.

No it isn't. I'm going to assume that you're a human. Let's say as a human you have the option to live like an ape and use all the tools they have access to and act in their way. Yet as a human you can live beyond that. In the same way, God can live and act in ways which are rational but in certain cases he needn't and doesn't.

As further evidence, has God lived forever? If so and He is subject to universal laws, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which I know you love so much) should have destroyed God. Yet He manages to live forever with angels, souls and a place forever.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Glad to entertain.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Gee, for not understanding you sure have a lot of answers.

More than you, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Stripe

This is no evidence. Gravity is an observed phenomenon. Logic is not. Gravity does not exist without matter. Logic may well do.

Logic is a discovered phenomenon which works within the bounds of our universe just like gravity (as it is represented by mathematics). If there is no representative law (like gravity) outside of space-time, then there is no need for logic. It's based on basic observation and evidence from which we can derive theories. If there is an absence then there is no logic. Universal laws are for the purpose of their existence universal meaning they only exist within our universe. Now if God can exist outside of our universe, then He doesn't need to be subject to the universal laws.

Originally Posted by Stripe

I rather think you have demanded evidence when there was never a need to.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I believe I've represented my case with proper evidence at every turn where you've simply claimed that you don't need evidence. It's a double standard in the greatest. I might as well turn around say that I don't need evidence for my case either.

Also, you ended your sentence with a preposition (i.e., "to").

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Memento Mori

You don't know that!

Some things we do know. One thing I know is that there will always be things you do not know.

No it isn't. I'm going to assume that you're a human. Let's say as a human you have the option to live like an ape and use all the tools they have access to and act in their way. Yet as a human you can live beyond that. In the same way, God can live and act in ways which are rational but in certain cases he needn't and doesn't.

This is in no way analogous to being logical. Inventing a nonsense idea and calling it possible is still nonsense.

As further evidence, has God lived forever? If so and He is subject to universal laws, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which I know you love so much) should have destroyed God. Yet He manages to live forever with angels, souls and a place forever.

Life is not a physical thing. God is not subject to natural laws. That's why we call Him supernatural. But we do not also say He is "beyond life". That is a nonsense statement with no rational or useful application.

Logic is a discovered phenomenon which works within the bounds of our universe just like gravity (as it is represented by mathematics).

It's not just like gravity. Gravity is a description of direct observation. Logic is a description of good and right thinking. Gravity describes physical reality. Logic describes the truth of ideas. Ideas are not physical things.

If there is no representative law (like gravity) outside of space-time, then there is no need for logic.

Of course there is. If a supernatural being is to act before matter was created then He must act in a rational manner. It is no good Him having the first thoughts toward creating the universe after He has created it. That's just absurd. Logic dictates that He first have the idea, then plan, then create. That's fair, isn't it?

It's based on basic observation and evidence from which we can derive theories. If there is an absence then there is no logic. Universal laws are for the purpose of their existence universal meaning they only exist within our universe. Now if God can exist outside of our universe, then He doesn't need to be subject to the universal laws.

The only alternative to being logical is to be illogical. And you think God is illogical. So you could think He created the universe before He had the idea to do so. Why do you need to describe this as Him being "outside logic" when you freely admit He is not logical? Why not just say that?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There's nothing extraordinary about claiming God is either rational or irrational.

I believe I've represented my case with proper evidence at every turn where you've simply claimed that you don't need evidence.

Your case is that God is "beyond logic" or else perhaps it is that God is illogical. Hard to tell. Regardless you have only pretended to have evidence.

It's a double standard in the greatest. I might as well turn around say that I don't need evidence for my case either.

Luckily you don't need it, given you don't have any.

Also, you ended your sentence with a preposition (i.e., "to").

The verb clause was implied.