Proof A=A

[fr0d0]

You made the claim. You have failed to back it up. You lose.

I'm responding to your earlier absurd notion that logic can't disprove the concept for god. Get it through your head fr0d0.

This whole conversation stems from your claim that God is logically impossible. You made the claim. You back it up.

I'm asking you the question on logic. I'm free to answer your questions in any way I wish.

Except that's a complete non sequitur, faith as you know is unrelated to logic and the original premise of your argument.

Yes, you abandoned your argument and now proceed to turn this into some fabrication of your imagination.

Well thanks fr0d0 for making me do your homework as that was a waste of time; even an apologist or biblical literalist can recognise God is being metaphorically described like a mother and/or whose image is likened to a nurturing mother; but none of these passages explicitly state the character's both male and female. So the logical contradiction that god is defined as a spiritual entity yet is apparently biologically male still stands I'm afraid.

Funny I thought I just showed you examples from the bible where god is referred to by it's feminine character. You keep coming out with this logical contradiction accusation without ever backing it up.

Off the top of my head, nothing final here... let's take Genesis 1:27 :
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

So man, both male and female, was the image of God. Geddit?

Why do you find calling god 'logically impossible' to be nonsensical? This is especially odd since you like many theists argue for the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God and constantly affirm that God isn't bound by the rules of logic, because in other words, you believe this God created everything including the rules of logic, right? Therefore do you credit he can perform logically impossible actions as they're only perceived as 'impossible' from our puny perspective, correct?

God's transcendence makes no comment on his logical possibility, but his physical nature. You confuse the two.

Well in that case here's my objection: if that's what you're actually implying of course, in that it is impossible for anyone including you to ever know anything about the god you presuppose exists to start with. To say God is outside reality subsequently rules out any possibility of you understanding its existence through your reasoning and logic. If that's honestly your position then you can't make any attempt to describe his nature or attributes (e.g. loving, infinite, cosmic judge of creation, all-powerful) to anyone else, neither would anyone else have any good reason to think this half-baked concept is true, indeed WHY even bother claim there's any god(s) to start with?

I can know something of God. What did you think the bible was?

It can be supported by logic though, and is. It's just ultimately unknowable. Everything around you is hard evidence should you believe in a creator.

That's hardly a well-thought out rational statement from you. I'm starting to think you don't know what logic means, which would explain a lot. You're going to have to do a lot better than clouds, trees and flowers as supposed evidence for a cosmic creator.

It's a rationally sound statement. If your stance is one of knowledge then once again, please avail us of this unique insight.