Proof A=A

[tavarish]

You don't get a lot of it Tav, which is't bad. You should retain responsibility for asking reasonable questions, and to ask unreasonably wide questions will do nothing to further your understanding. You seem to deny certain areas of our discussions. Specifically those which would cause you effort and to perhaps see things from another angle. We started out with me pointing out your own heinous fallacies, and you have yet to make counter accusations stick.

Here's what you said to start out:

@Tav my definition isn't just impossible - because in science it's just unreachable. My theology doesn't 'assume' something we're yet to know. Something 'unknowable' isn't ever going to be discovered.. or it wouldn't be unknowable would it? This is you still struggling to use the wrong tool.

I asked you how you know it's unreachable and you didn't answer.

Then you said:

@ Tav: I know you withhold judgement. I also know you place an illogical prerequisite in the way. Convenient, if dishonest.

I asked you to elaborate and you came back with this.

@ Tav: the evidence is logical evidence. The assumptions are theories that most make sense and are thus taken as such. The dishonesty you apply is in changing the subject and saying that because the logic fails the test of the foreign subject it must be false.

This is NOT elaborating, and failing to make a point at assessing any of your claims.

You wrote this:

Haha yeah Big Grin *escorts tavarish into the abyss...*

Me I'm like the Piraha. I live for the moment and everything is in my own thoughts. You could go check the summa and work it out for yourself of course.

Which didn't answer any questions, just raised new ones, as you have said that you don't believe in biblical literalism.

The summa contends that God is simple and exists.
If an entity is a creator, he would have to ultimately be more complex than that creation.

The summa also relies heavily on religious hierarchy and believes in the literal end of days and extra rewards in heaven for being a martyr or monk.

The summa makes the point that theology is the most certain of all the sciences because the source is divine and inerrant. Certainty does not equal correctness. It also most certainly promotes intellectual stagnation rather than development.

It also makes the claim that God can be proven by human reasoning alone, which we know is not the case. Human reasoning has come a long way, and seeing as the summa was written before the age of reason, I can understand why. It more accurately points to rationalization or confirmation bias, rather than a modern day method of deductive reasoning.

Do you believe all of this? Do you not see that a God claim backed up with a claim that theology is inerrant is circular reasoning?

The summa theology still has no account for why God has the nature assigned to him.

It all comes back to the first set of questions I asked you.

Is there anything I missed before the back and forth bickering?

[fr0d0]

I answered your questions you just didn't see how. I've answered you many times now on the same questions and you just come back that you don't understand. As the points are usually very simple and straightforward, I know it's pure stubbornness on your part. You simply won't accept that your philosophy which includes God as a scientifically provable 'thing' can't be so. There needs to be some groundwork on that for you to move forward, but you want to expand to more complex reasoning rather than do that. Hence your lack of comprehension of anything 'deeper'.

Do you believe all of this?

No I don't because that isn't what it says