RE: How thick is Matt Slick?
June 15, 2016 at 7:03 am
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2016 at 7:06 am by SteveII.)
(June 14, 2016 at 10:19 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: God is omniscient, and always has been, and at no point in "time" or at no "moment" was it the case that there was information he lacked, right? So there was no process by which he determines anything, right? [1] So it is unnecessary for him to invoke logic, right? You need to either provide a workable definition of logic that takes us in a different direction or else concede you're wrong.
I've seen many Christians tell me that I'm just a contrarian and I'll argue no matter what. But in reality it's the Christians that argue no matter what. I'm not even trying to prove anything negative about God here. Matt Slick's theology is contradicted by my conclusion, but, as far as I can tell, yours isn't. Your only reason for rejecting my argument is your pathological contrarianism, your belief that atheists are wrong no matter what. I think it's quite clear that God has no reason to invoke logic, as I've been claiming all along, and your best move is to tip over your king to at least salvage some respect from those of us who are still watching this conversation. [2]
[1] I agree with the above statement. God does not "invoke logic" defined as an analytical process ( I have said the exact same thing a dozen time). As you pointed out his omniscience allows him to skip this step. However that in no way means that all conclusions God has are not logical (of or pertaining to logic). Your leap to God has no need of logic is unfounded.
1. Logical conclusions are derived from either a) the process of logically analyzing assumptions or b) having omniscience.
2. God has omniscience
3. God's conclusions are logical
[2] I was going to say something, but nevermind, it wont matter.
