(June 10, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Why do you include "pondering". That is a straw man.

Logic is the process/set of rules by which we organize our thoughts.  If God invokes logic, then he must be thinking about something.  Are you saying I'm propping up a strawman by equating "thought" with "ponder"?  Are you trying to say that God has quick little instantaneous thoughts but doesn't sit there and ponder something carefully because that would be some kind of strawman against God?  Or are you saying that God does not think at all?  If he doesn't, how is he using logic?

Perhaps that is the problem with your argument. God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience. The fact that he does not need to ponder in no way affects whether a decision is logical.

You're conceding the argument.  You just said that God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience.  If God does not need to ponder, then he certainly does not need to ponder in an organized manner, right?  And if he does not need to ponder in an organized manner, then he does not need to invoke logic, which means I have won the argument.

Logic is the system or framework organized according to strict principles of validity. It is not a process. It is a noun (unlike thinking, pondering, etc.). You are equivocating between how someone arrives at a logical conclusion and the logical conclusion. Someone could arrive at a logical conclusion without thinking or pondering at all or entirely by accident. Omniscience substitutes for pondering and thinking with the same result: logical conclusion. 
You are also introducing an temporal component to the mind of God. Successive thoughts are temporal events. Is God bound by time? 
Straw man: You used the word "pondering" and then knocked it over with "why would God need to ponder if he already knows everything?"

Thick as a brick, slippery like an oil slick.

(June 10, 2016 at 7:00 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Why do you include "pondering". That is a straw man.

Logic is the process/set of rules by which we organize our thoughts.  If God invokes logic, then he must be thinking about something.  Are you saying I'm propping up a strawman by equating "thought" with "ponder"?  Are you trying to say that God has quick little instantaneous thoughts but doesn't sit there and ponder something carefully because that would be some kind of strawman against God?  Or are you saying that God does not think at all?  If he doesn't, how is he using logic?

Perhaps that is the problem with your argument. God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience. The fact that he does not need to ponder in no way affects whether a decision is logical.

You're conceding the argument.  You just said that God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience.  If God does not need to ponder, then he certainly does not need to ponder in an organized manner, right?  And if he does not need to ponder in an organized manner, then he does not need to invoke logic, which means I have won the argument.

Logic is the system or framework organized according to strict principles of validity. It is not a process. It is a noun (unlike thinking, pondering, etc.). You are equivocating between how someone arrives at a logical conclusion and the logical conclusion. Someone could arrive at a logical conclusion without thinking or pondering at all or entirely by accident. Omniscience substitutes for pondering and thinking with the same result: logical conclusion. 
You are also introducing an temporal component to the mind of God. Successive thoughts are temporal events. Is God bound by time? 
Straw man: You used the word "pondering" and then knocked it over with "why would God need to ponder if he already knows everything?"

By logic, to be sentient, you have to be bound by some time.

(June 10, 2016 at 7:00 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Why do you include "pondering". That is a straw man.

Logic is the process/set of rules by which we organize our thoughts.  If God invokes logic, then he must be thinking about something.  Are you saying I'm propping up a strawman by equating "thought" with "ponder"?  Are you trying to say that God has quick little instantaneous thoughts but doesn't sit there and ponder something carefully because that would be some kind of strawman against God?  Or are you saying that God does not think at all?  If he doesn't, how is he using logic?

Perhaps that is the problem with your argument. God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience. The fact that he does not need to ponder in no way affects whether a decision is logical.

You're conceding the argument.  You just said that God does not need to ponder because of his omniscience.  If God does not need to ponder, then he certainly does not need to ponder in an organized manner, right?  And if he does not need to ponder in an organized manner, then he does not need to invoke logic, which means I have won the argument.

Logic is the system or framework organized according to strict principles of validity. It is not a process. It is a noun (unlike thinking, pondering, etc.). You are equivocating between how someone arrives at a logical conclusion and the logical conclusion. Someone could arrive at a logical conclusion without thinking or pondering at all or entirely by accident. Omniscience substitutes for pondering and thinking with the same result: logical conclusion. 
You are also introducing an temporal component to the mind of God. Successive thoughts are temporal events. Is God bound by time? 
Straw man: You used the word "pondering" and then knocked it over with "why would God need to ponder if he already knows everything?"

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. You just said that "process" is not a noun. You've been wrong, then wrong, then wrong again, you're wrong about this and I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your post because you did not tell me whether parallel lines cross. Hell, who am I kidding, even if you did go down that road you're still never going to admit you're wrong about anything because apologists don't do that.

(June 10, 2016 at 7:43 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 7:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: Logic is the system or framework organized according to strict principles of validity. It is not a process. It is a noun (unlike thinking, pondering, etc.). You are equivocating between how someone arrives at a logical conclusion and the logical conclusion. Someone could arrive at a logical conclusion without thinking or pondering at all or entirely by accident. Omniscience substitutes for pondering and thinking with the same result: logical conclusion. 
You are also introducing an temporal component to the mind of God. Successive thoughts are temporal events. Is God bound by time? 
Straw man: You used the word "pondering" and then knocked it over with "why would God need to ponder if he already knows everything?"

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. You just said that "process" is not a noun.  You've been wrong, then wrong, then wrong again, you're wrong about this and I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your post because you did not tell me whether parallel lines cross. Hell, who am I kidding, even if you did go down that road you're still never going to admit you're wrong about anything because apologists don't do that.

First, I did not say that process is not a noun. Read it again. "It" in each of those sentences is "logic". The sentences are not connected in any other way then their subjects are the same. You have YET to show me how I was wrong in anything.

I did not get to your question about parallel lines because I didn't even address your second point yet about logic being a human invention. I started typing that but stopped when I saw this ridiculous post. 

If you don't want to continue, fine. 

BTW, parallel lines do not intersect.

(June 10, 2016 at 9:28 pm)SteveII Wrote: First, I did not say that process is not a noun. Read it again. "It" in each of those sentences is "logic". The sentences are not connected in any other way then their subjects are the same. You have YET to show me how I was wrong in anything.

So you said,

"[Logic] is not a process. [Logic] is a noun."

It is natural for me to infer that you are saying that logic is not a process because logic is a noun, which would mean that you don't think "process" is a noun. Technically, you did not say this so you technically don't have to admit to being wrong on this issue, but I think we both know what you meant and I'd be impressed if you acted with some humility and intellectual honesty here. Or you could clarify what you meant here and how my inference is totally off base.

Quote:I did not get to your question about parallel lines because I didn't even address your second point yet about logic being a human invention. I started typing that but stopped when I saw this ridiculous post. 

If you don't want to continue, fine. 

BTW, parallel lines do not intersect.

Ok great now we're getting somewhere. Parallel lines don't intersect. Now please expound on your position that mathematicians who perform geometry on a sphere or in other non-Euclidean spaces are using math that is incorrect because it violates the absolute principle you set forth. I assume you have your PhD in mathematics and are fully qualified for this task. I assume further that your notion that absolute truth exists arises from your in-depth education on formal logic and mathematics.

I await your demonstration in refuting non-Euclidean geometry. The floor is yours.

deleted.

(June 10, 2016 at 11:37 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 9:28 pm)SteveII Wrote: First, I did not say that process is not a noun. Read it again. "It" in each of those sentences is "logic". The sentences are not connected in any other way then their subjects are the same. You have YET to show me how I was wrong in anything.

So you said,

"[Logic] is not a process. [Logic] is a noun."

It is natural for me to infer that you are saying that logic is not a process because logic is a noun, which would mean that you don't think "process" is a noun.  Technically, you did not say this so you technically don't have to admit to being wrong on this issue, but I think we both know what you meant and I'd be impressed if you acted with some humility and intellectual honesty here.  Or you could clarify what you meant here and how my inference is totally off base.

Quote:I did not get to your question about parallel lines because I didn't even address your second point yet about logic being a human invention. I started typing that but stopped when I saw this ridiculous post. 

If you don't want to continue, fine. 

BTW, parallel lines do not intersect.

Ok great now we're getting somewhere. Parallel lines don't intersect. Now please expound on your position that mathematicians who perform geometry on a sphere or in other non-Euclidean spaces are using math that is incorrect because it violates the absolute principle you set forth.  I assume you have your PhD in mathematics and are fully qualified for this task.  I assume further that your notion that absolute truth exists arises from your in-depth education on formal logic and mathematics.

I await your demonstration in refuting non-Euclidean geometry. The floor is yours.

I don't need to expound my position. Parallel lines do not intersect. 

Actually I don't want to continue this at all. You are unnecessarily condescending and immature. You think you are making a good point when you are not. I listened to both of your calls with Matt Slick and your characterization of them is amusing. You were way out of your depth.

(June 10, 2016 at 7:40 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 7:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: Logic is the system or framework organized according to strict principles of validity. It is not a process. It is a noun (unlike thinking, pondering, etc.). You are equivocating between how someone arrives at a logical conclusion and the logical conclusion. Someone could arrive at a logical conclusion without thinking or pondering at all or entirely by accident. Omniscience substitutes for pondering and thinking with the same result: logical conclusion. 
You are also introducing an temporal component to the mind of God. Successive thoughts are temporal events. Is God bound by time? 
Straw man: You used the word "pondering" and then knocked it over with "why would God need to ponder if he already knows everything?"

By logic, to be sentient, you have to be bound by some time.

Interesting. I can see why God would have to relate to the universe in a temporal manner. However within his mind, being omniscient does not take successive thoughts to know a truth so there would be no change in the mind of God from one instant to another. He would be omniscient with or without the universe with or without time.

(June 11, 2016 at 1:33 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 10, 2016 at 7:40 pm)Irrational Wrote: By logic, to be sentient, you have to be bound by some time.

Interesting. I can see why God would have to relate to the universe in a temporal manner. However within his mind, being omniscient does not take successive thoughts to know a truth so there would be no change in the mind of God from one instant to another. He would be omniscient with or without the universe with or without time.

Just asserting it doesn't make it logical.

If God does not even think, then God is no different from a mindless entity.