God says “Love me or die”

[Violet]

While you may think that there are rational/logical observations that can be made...

There certainly are. Included in that logic is that it cannot be fully conclusive.

??? see now... that just doesn't make any sense. Reword statement?

you should note that "God" being able to create something from nothing defies logic

Please state irrefutably how.

The three rules of logic:
A=A <-- law of identity. To create something from nothing is to suggest that 0 + 0 > 0... which is to suggest that 0 is not itself... thus contradicting the law of identity.

A ≠ ≠ A <--- law of contradiction. A cannot be both A and not A at the same time. So you can't have by logic 0 + 0 > 0, as that would be suggesting that 0 is something other than itself and itself at the same time... thus contradicting the law of contradiction.

A must be either A or not A <---- law of the excluded middle. There is no position for a thing to be other than itself or not itself. If you can find a way for 0 + 0 > 0 with a position that 0 is either 0, or not 0: I would be amazed.

So you can't by logic have something that is A: not itself, B: both itself and not, or C: that is neither itself nor not.

[quoe]

and observation is to suggest that "God" can be scientifically tested.

Do you mean that as it reads?[/quote]
Yes. Science is the practice of observing, making inferences and hypothesizing, testing, then starting at the beginning with the results and do it over and over again.

If a thing is observable... it means that a thing has already hit step one of the scientific method.

But I can understand how the rest is what you base your christianity on (fr0d0 probably does as well, as probably does a lot of Christians).

I don't base mine on subjective experience. To me that's an inconclusive bi-product.


...and Christians don't believe that God wrote the bible.. they believe he inspired it. Muslims believe it is the infallible word of Allah. It being possible or not is immaterial.

I actually do know a Christian who believes that "God" did write the bible... she happens to be my sister 0.o And then i've seen Christians suggest that the Bible is infallible. It being possible or not means a lot when talking about things that we cannot know anything about.

[fr0d0]

While you may think that there are rational/logical observations that can be made...

There certainly are. Included in that logic is that it cannot be fully conclusive.

??? see now... that just doesn't make any sense. Reword statement?

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

you should note that "God" being able to create something from nothing defies logic

Please state irrefutably how.

The three rules of logic:
A=A <-- law of identity. To create something from nothing is to suggest that 0 + 0 > 0... which is to suggest that 0 is not itself... thus contradicting the law of identity.

A ≠ ≠ A <--- law of contradiction. A cannot be both A and not A at the same time. So you can't have by logic 0 + 0 > 0, as that would be suggesting that 0 is something other than itself and itself at the same time... thus contradicting the law of contradiction.

A must be either A or not A <---- law of the excluded middle. There is no position for a thing to be other than itself or not itself. If you can find a way for 0 + 0 > 0 with a position that 0 is either 0, or not 0: I would be amazed.

So you can't by logic have something that is A: not itself, B: both itself and not, or C: that is neither itself nor not.

Thankyou.

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

and observation is to suggest that "God" can be scientifically tested.

Do you mean that as it reads?

Yes. Science is the practice of observing, making inferences and hypothesizing, testing, then starting at the beginning with the results and do it over and over again.

If a thing is observable... it means that a thing has already hit step one of the scientific method.

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

I actually do know a Christian who believes that "God" did write the bible... she happens to be my sister 0.o And then i've seen Christians suggest that the Bible is infallible. It being possible or not means a lot when talking about things that we cannot know anything about.

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.

[Violet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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...

[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

[Darwinian]

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

It could be programmed to just like many children of religious families are.

[fr0d0]

It could be programmed to just like many children of religious families are.

Programming is computer abuse?

[theVOID]

It could be programmed to just like many children of religious families are.

Programming is computer abuse?

Of course, for all you know the chip in your machine wanted nothing more than to be a commercial microwave oven

[downbeatplumb]

It could be programmed to just like many children of religious families are.

Programming is computer abuse?

I give you the eletronic monk which can be programmed to believe in things they dont believe in Utah.

only £19.99