TeX
You lazily accuse me of presenting circular logic, when I do no such thing. The validity of the bible comes from reference to physical reality. Reasoning that both you and I must agree upon.
I've explained to you how God is reasoned. That isn't the assumption. Belief in him is the assumption, based upon solid reasoning.
I understand that by using logic I can understand what would make this deity work. No blind faith or lack of reasoning involved. No bridging of gaps.
If my God exists, he is the origin of all things and so the universe is subject to logical consequence from him.
The assumptions are verifiable by anyone else, including you. False knowledge would be based upon false assumptions. No one has shown this. Many have confirmed it.
You lazily accuse me of presenting circular logic, when I do no such thing. The validity of the bible comes from reference to physical reality. Reasoning that both you and I must agree upon.
I've explained to you how God is reasoned. That isn't the assumption. Belief in him is the assumption, based upon solid reasoning.
I understand that by using logic I can understand what would make this deity work. No blind faith or lack of reasoning involved. No bridging of gaps.
If my God exists, he is the origin of all things and so the universe is subject to logical consequence from him.
The assumptions are verifiable by anyone else, including you. False knowledge would be based upon false assumptions. No one has shown this. Many have confirmed it.
