God says “Love me or die”

[Violet]

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

*Observing*
*Analyzing*
*Interpreting*
*Error interpreting data*
*Reruns analyzation protocols*
*Interpreting*
*Error interpreting data*
*Reruns observation protocols*
*Analyzing*
*Interpreting*
*Identified fallthrough logic or other an impossibility to interpret*
*Cancelled subroutines*
*Timed out*

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.

It isn't logically possible... that does not mean it is necessarily impossible... only impossible for us to comprehend.

"Creation" may or may not have happened... while I think it is unlikely that such an event ever occurred, I am in no position better than an eccentric young woman. I am not stating that "God" did not create the universe (or even that he does not exist, though that is my honest belief)... only that if 'he' did create the universe from nothing he would have to do it illogically. I am only stating here that you can't defend a position of creation from nothing with logic...

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.

Anything can be asserted without observation... but you can't have any observation of "God" without justifying your belief in "God". One can use anything to justify belief in anything... but that does not mean their justification is either valid or sound.

I don't believe the nonexistent can be 'observed' past wishful thinking (like 'observing' water after going two days without in a desert). And that sort of 'observation' would be classified as a delusion. However, if "God" can be observed outside of delusion or the like... then it too remains that he can be tested scientifically.

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.

We know this... how? Aliens could just as easily have done it. As could gods. As could a video game player. I don't disagree with you that humans wrote it... but i do disagree that we could prove it beyond all possibility of there being another explanation. If we are already assuming that "God" exists... i don't see how it wouldn't be very easy for him to have written the bible (after all, he had the knowledge of good and evil trapped up in the fruit of one tree... and we'd be slow to forget the Babel incident).

Here again you are confusing that which is logical with that which is reasonable. It is reasonable to assume that the water in my bathtub is drained someplace that it won't damage the house or yard. It is logical only to state (with clarity) that the water that was in the tub is in the tub no longer, at least in its state as we assume it to be.

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.

Faith is necessitated by both beliefs. Faith is necessitated by all belief. There is no belief in which there is not also faith. Even what i just said is a position of faith. It would odd to hold that against something...