fr0d0, talking of logical contradictions and vagueness: In the past you have said "God doesn't exist. God just IS".

As for your attempted explanation for how you're not being vague but actually being specific, all you seem to be saying is that "we know different things and this leads us to believe different things"... which doesn't make sense because we can't both know the truth of things when both our interpretation of the world's contradict each other.

And if we are to change "we know different things" to "We experience different things and this leads us to believe different things", I already acknowledged that and it is that that I wondered if there was anything that we can be more specific about. (Can we for instance talk of deductive or inductive logic?).

It seems , fr0d0, that you don't know whether we can get any more specific about it either. But if that's the case, do you wonder like I do whether we indeed can or not, or are you not curious about that and you are satisfied with the idea of us never getting to such specifics/think such specifics are impossible?

Yes we have been distracted into considering hard evidence. Thanks Rayaan Something I think both of us acknowledge is a foolish and pointless task.

It isn't the words (in a book) that are knowledge. It's our understanding. We look at the same words... I understand and use them to inform my faith. To you it doesn't make any sense. So our knowledge, even given superficially the same information (not in reality - in reality there is no comprehensible information to you) is not equal.

And what truth differs between us, and what effect on us does that have? The quantitive effect on me is how I think and assess everything presented to me. Likewise your actions are governed by whatever influences you take in.

Specific, I can be exactly. I don't think you want to discuss that subject though, because it never involves this red herring of existence, that forgive me if I'm wrong, trips you up before you start.

Red herring of existence? So the existence of God is irrelevant?

What I am asking is for you to be more specific about how you interpret the bible in any way that would constitute any logically valid reason(s) for his existence. I am not asking you to paraphrase and re-paraphrase vague assertions.

Belief in God and his existence are a matter of faith, and not something to be claimed or proven empirically. I thought we were on the same page with that.

'How' do I interpret it... lol I just read it & discuss it. How do you? I look at it very seriously, and find that challenges to it are defeated.

I've addressed many such challenges, of simple ideas on this forum. You've seen the definition of faith as Christians understand it... it's a reasoned position.

I didn't speak of empiricism, I spoke of logic. I am aware that you do not believe God requires physical or empirical evidence but you have told me before that when you have faith in God you are trusting in the information. Now what I am asking is, is this information logical?

I am aware that empiricism and physical evidence may not be involved, but what about logic? Are you suggesting that faith is devoid of logic? In other words, it is objectively illogical and therefore objectively nonsensical? That's what I believe, do you believe that too?

It has to be logical. Not all of it can be though, given a more powerful being as subject. Adding in the full complexity doesn't aid the simple question I believe you pose.

Subjectivism is built into faith. You might not like that, but I'm afraid that's the nature of this beast. Take it or leave it.

Can you give one example of logic supporting faith? Or of faith being logical?

Given x, 1 + x = 1x

Given God, justice is served.

I think you mistyped there: 1 + x = x + 1, not 1x. I have no real head for this sort of thing but even I know you'd get an F for that.

(November 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Given x, 1 + x = 1x

Given God, justice is served.

Given the assumption that God exists you believe that the world is a more just place?

Well, if that is true then that's a rationally pragmatic justification to believe in God, not a rationally logical one. Logically, there's still no reason to believe that God exists. It is merely useful (useful for justice) to believe in that case, not logical.