God says “Love me or die”

[fr0d0]

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*

LOL

Well precisely. A computer couldn't believe in God. At least not an insufficiently intelligent one

I am only stating here that you can't defend a position of creation from nothing with logic...

Absolutely my point

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.

You're not taking into consideration the compilation of logical thought. Given A, suggests B, posits C, infers D, etc..

No one is 'asserting' as in stating anything as fact - merely as correct given the assumption... this is always the qualifier when looking at this in a coherently logical manner. This 'sound' belief isn't transferable from me to you because you have to make the assumption too for it to work.

It's at this point that science runs out of steam because science needs something to be verifiable independently. And belief in God is intrinsically personal.

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).

Yes there is always the possibility, but why jump to the conclusion? What is the rational basis in doing so? I don't believe, for instance, that God put the knowledge of good and evil into a fruit tree... to me it's obviously an allegorical story. Same with 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.

Granted

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...

Indeedy