God says “Love me or die”

[fr0d0]

Part of the logic for believing is that one cannot know absolutely that God 'is'. Faith is central.

Don't see what this has to do with logic... but as far as reason's for having faith I understand that.

AB must include A & B. A - logic for God includes B - that he can't be known absolutely.

Thankyou.

By the same rules this existence also couldn't have happened. So God simply follows the rules of this existence?

I have no idea what you are going on about here...

Logic in no way claims to be correct... but if the formation of the universe was not logical, then you can't really use logic to explain it.

Your mathematical proofs showed how it isn't possible for something to come out of nothing. You are positing that creation didn't happen, that something has to have always existed.

What I was asking was if creation did occur and is illogical then so is creation by God. If it's possible but not logical that doesn't discount God's involvement.

his doesn't hit step one of the scientific method... because the scientific method isn't compatible. ergo: God isn't scientifically observable.

And if that be the case, then so also be that you cannot observe God. To do so would firstly enable him to be scrutinized by science... and secondly defeat the purpose of having faith in the unknowable.

Indeed. But observable how? It is the theology's assertion that God removes himself from (verifiable) observation. It isn't simply that he isn't observable.

No one said we cannot know anything about God. Just that we cannot know everything. It's clearly & widely accepted that humans authored the bible inspired by God. To state the God wrote it is a leap of logic. Some Christians do indeed believe it to be infallible. I think it's potentially infallible... ie it's perfect as I understand it but that isn't to say it cannot be improved. After all, a council in 400AD decided it's compilation and those again were only people making the decisions.

And again... logic and truth are not necessarily related. For logic to apply, a thing must be considered for sake of argument to be true. ie: If all dogs are mountains, and all mountains are blue, then it is logical that all dogs are blue. This is valid... validity is not soundness (truth, if you will).

It is only a "leap of logic" if it is assumed to be true in the first place that "God" did not write it... then the suggestion that god did write it would contradict the first and you would have fall-through.

We know that the written words of the bible exist. And the only way we know for this to have occurred is through human intervention. A leap of logic would be to assume something else without proof. The book is about God. It isn't written in the first person. It's logical to assume the writers were inspired by God as subsequent followers of the belief can attest to the correctness of the observations.

As to the bold: if you can know something about "God"... then it is to suggest that "God" is observable... and to suggest that a thing is observable means that the observations can be recorded. Which is further to state that all of "God" can be known if any of "God" can be known... and if any of "God" can be known, then it lessens the amount of faith required to believe in him.

What you and I can both concur from the bible about the nature of God can A. be completely discounted by you and B. completely accepted by me. Observable not meaning externally verifiable necessitates faith.