(August 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Tex: the universe would be logical if we could perceive it or not. It's logically is not dependant upon our understanding.

Explain how the universe would be determined as logical without the existance of a being to determine it as so.

I would say the validity of the universe either existing or not, is either true or false in the absence of a mind perceiving it as logical.

(August 9, 2013 at 1:20 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: They are descriptive of nature. Frodo needs to show that they are prescriptive from God.

Nature is God.

I don't need to show that. The question is superfluous. No believer needs to prove anything to himself in those terms, or his faith is unfounded/ rather his belief is based upon absolute knowledge. That isn't religious faith.

Faith, in the Christian tradition, is acting upon information that you trust to be true. All three conditions are essential. Information, trust and action.

(August 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm)ITChick Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Cheese wheels are round and yellow.
The moon is round and yellow.
The moon is made of cheese.

There needs to be a modicum of reason behind the use of logic.

Sparty, if I remember my logic course correctly, the answer to that one is that there is insufficient information to reach the third statement.

A correct one would be:
Everything that is round and yellow is cheese.
The moon is round and yellow.
The moon is made of cheese.

They're both fallacies that occur in a different order. One affirms the antecedent the other affirms the consequent. At any rate, the goal is to start with a conclusion and then find premises to support it. It's also called ignoring alternatives.

(August 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Explain how the universe would be determined as logical without the existance of a being to determine it as so.

If a man shouts in a forest and there is no
woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

(August 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 1:20 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: They are descriptive of nature. Frodo needs to show that they are prescriptive from God.

Nature is God.

I don't need to show that. The question is superfluous. No believer needs to prove anything to himself in those terms, or his faith is unfounded/ rather his belief is based upon absolute knowledge. That isn't religious faith.

Faith, in the Christian tradition, is acting upon information that you trust to be true. All three conditions are essential. Information, trust and action.

So God is natural?

(August 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 1:20 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: They are descriptive of nature. Frodo needs to show that they are prescriptive from God.

Nature is God.

I don't need to show that. The question is superfluous. No believer needs to prove anything to himself in those terms, or his faith is unfounded/ rather his belief is based upon absolute knowledge. That isn't religious faith.

Faith, in the Christian tradition, is acting upon information that you trust to be true. All three conditions are essential. Information, trust and action.

Nature is not God.

I don't need to show that. The statement is superfluous. No believer can ever prove to another that his belief is justified because his belief is based on no knowledge. That is religious faith.

(August 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nature is God.

Is Jesus nature also, then?

(August 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nature is God.

Then your god is not a conscious being, has no mind, and thus could not create anything purposefully. You have a useless god concept.

We already have a word for it, and that word is nature. Why call it god?

Quote:I don't need to show that. The question is superfluous. No believer needs to prove anything to himself in those terms, or his faith is unfounded/ rather his belief is based upon absolute knowledge. That isn't religious faith.

Faith, in the Christian tradition, is acting upon information that you trust to be true. All three conditions are essential. Information, trust and action.

I notice you left evidence out of the equation, which is a pity, because information can be wrong, trust can be misplaced, and actions can be misguided, but evidence leads us to things that are true.

Oh, right: you believe there can't be any evidence for god... why was that, again? Seriously.

(August 9, 2013 at 1:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Explain how the universe would be determined as logical without the existance of a being to determine it as so.

If a man shouts in a forest and there is no
woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

That's a loaded question. Who said he was wrong in the first place? I'm not sure that makes the point you were aiming at.

(August 9, 2013 at 1:44 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nature is God.

Is Jesus nature also, then?

Don't you start!

If Allah created everything, isn't Allah also in nature? Wouldn't nature be made of the substance that created it? Or do you believe that creation and Allah are separate?