Proof A=A

[fr0d0]

Which bit of the summa would you like me to explain?

[Welsh cake]

@ cake: what exactly did I rebut? you know a rebut has to counter an actual claim right? You made a baseless assertion which you refuse to backup. I'm assuming by now that your position is lost.

The Trinity isn't a contradiction at all. It's just something held by faith.

If you looked into the exact translations you'd see that God isn't always masculine. So your assertion of maleness is ill founded.

A couple of points:
1. You assume many things, the Christian God exists being one of them.
2. How can I 'lose my position' if you can't manage to provide one single persuasive argument for what you believe is true?
3. We're talking about logic, not faith. Or at least you were, but you keep changing the bloody subject whenever it suits you.
4. What translations of the Biblical God's gender are you referring to exactly?


Now fr0d0, there's a difference between logically impossible and unknowable, this is why your earlier claim logic can't refute concepts was erroneous, because it's still an existence claim, one you have the burden of proof for, because god is being put forward as a barely-working hypothesis, and not a theory.

Now proposing the possibility of the existence of highly-evolved beings on other planets or in space itself falls into the category of the unknowable, because such beings may plausibly exist, but without sufficient evidence first there's no way one can ever affirm they actually do, its not supported by logic, but it cannot be refuted either.

Now asserting that an omni-benevolent god that created reality including hell where he torments people for an eternity for not loving him; is omnipresent yet hell is somehow separate from his presence, and so on; falls into the category of the, no no, not unknowable, but logically impossible because it's definition is one unjustifiable claim after another. The concept of an intelligent universe creator cannot be supported by logic, especially when there is evidence to suggest that no god(s) exist or were responsible for the Big Bang, due to a lack of said evidence, therefore sky-daddy (or "sky-transvestite" according to your recent research) is eligible to be refuted by logic.

One would be no less justified by claiming the universe was created by the sneeze of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Good luck with the shoelaces

Pity I'm wearing Slip-ons.

[fr0d0]

A couple of points:
1. You assume many things, the Christian God exists being one of them.

I believe, and I could equally easily disbelieve

2. How can I 'lose my position' if you can't manage to provide one single persuasive argument for what you believe is true?

You made the claim. You have failed to back it up. You lose.

3. We're talking about logic, not faith. Or at least you were, but you keep changing the bloody subject whenever it suits you.

I'm asking you the question on logic. I'm free to answer your questions in any way I wish.

4. What translations of the Biblical God's gender are you referring to exactly?

The exact translation of the descriptions of God, in Genesis, for example, are not masculine.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http:...IMAGES.pdf

Now fr0d0, there's a difference between logically impossible and unknowable, this is why your earlier claim logic can't refute concepts was erroneous, because it's still an existence claim, one you have the burden of proof for, because god is being put forward as a barely-working hypothesis, and not a theory.

Your claim is that God is logically impossible. Which is of course nonsense. Unless you can enlighten us of this mysterious logic you're keeping so well hidden.

Now proposing the possibility of the existence of highly-evolved beings on other planets or in space itself falls into the category of the unknowable, because such beings may plausibly exist, but without sufficient evidence first there's no way one can ever affirm they actually do, its not supported by logic, but it cannot be refuted either.

No. It's not supported by evidence, not logic. Logically we consider alien life a possibility, and not an impossibility. After all we exist, so we have to assume that since we know physical laws can support life under certain circumstances we may not be unique.

This doesn't extend to the idea of a God. God is defined as transcendental. Unless we develop into transcendental beings we won't discover God as fact.

Now asserting that an omni-benevolent god that created reality including hell where he torments people for an eternity for not loving him; is omnipresent yet hell is somehow separate from his presence, and so on; falls into the category of the, no no, not unknowable, but logically impossible because it's definition is one unjustifiable claim after another. The concept of an intelligent universe creator cannot be supported by logic, especially when there is evidence to suggest that no god(s) exist or were responsible for the Big Bang, due to a lack of said evidence, therefore sky-daddy (or "sky-transvestite" according to your recent research) is eligible to be refuted by logic.

It can be supported by logic though, and is. It's just ultimately unknowable. Everything around you is hard evidence should you believe in a creator.

One would be no less justified by claiming the universe was created by the sneeze of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

That claim would be logically unfounded.

[Rhizomorph13]

One would be no less justified by claiming the universe was created by the sneeze of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

That claim would be logically unfounded.

No it was Arkleseizure's sneeze that created the universe under the guidance of the, supra-trancendant, Invisible Pink Unicorn(BBHH). SHHH, don't tell YHWH, or Dotard for that matter. Oh, also, apparently there is a non-contingent vacuum cleaner from the 26th dimension that, if it had intelligence, might need its feelings soothed were it to find out the truth.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

Or fantastical

[Rhizomorph13]

Or fantastical

YES! Much like the Christian God!

[Edwardo Piet]

Logic has to be assumed 'true' in the first place in order to be 'true'.

But how can logic really be false if both 'true' and 'false' make no sense without logic?

I don't think logic can be 'true' or 'false' because it is the basis for 'true' and 'false'. Neither make sense without it.

Or have I missed something?

EvF

[Welsh cake]

You made the claim. You have failed to back it up. You lose.

I'm responding to your earlier absurd notion that logic can't disprove the concept for god. Get it through your head fr0d0.

I'm asking you the question on logic. I'm free to answer your questions in any way I wish.

Except that's a complete non sequitur, faith as you know is unrelated to logic and the original premise of your argument.

The exact translation of the descriptions of God, in Genesis, for example, are not masculine.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http:...IMAGES.pdf

Well thanks fr0d0 for making me do your homework as that was a waste of time; even an apologist or biblical literalist can recognise God is being metaphorically described like a mother and/or whose image is likened to a nurturing mother; but none of these passages explicitly state the character's both male and female. So the logical contradiction that god is defined as a spiritual entity yet is apparently biologically male still stands I'm afraid.

Your claim is that God is logically impossible. Which is of course nonsense. Unless you can enlighten us of this mysterious logic you're keeping so well hidden.
...
No. It's not supported by evidence, not logic. Logically we consider alien life a possibility, and not an impossibility. After all we exist, so we have to assume that since we know physical laws can support life under certain circumstances we may not be unique.
...
This doesn't extend to the idea of a God. God is defined as transcendental. Unless we develop into transcendental beings we won't discover God as fact.

Why do you find calling god 'logically impossible' to be nonsensical? This is especially odd since you like many theists argue for the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God and constantly affirm that God isn't bound by the rules of logic, because in other words, you believe this God created everything including the rules of logic, right? Therefore do you credit he can perform logically impossible actions as they're only perceived as 'impossible' from our puny perspective, correct?

Well in that case here's my objection: if that's what you're actually implying of course, in that it is impossible for anyone including you to ever know anything about the god you presuppose exists to start with. To say God is outside reality subsequently rules out any possibility of you understanding its existence through your reasoning and logic. If that's honestly your position then you can't make any attempt to describe his nature or attributes (e.g. loving, infinite, cosmic judge of creation, all-powerful) to anyone else, neither would anyone else have any good reason to think this half-baked concept is true, indeed WHY even bother claim there's any god(s) to start with?

It can be supported by logic though, and is. It's just ultimately unknowable. Everything around you is hard evidence should you believe in a creator.

That's hardly a well-thought out rational statement from you. I'm starting to think you don't know what logic means, which would explain a lot. You're going to have to do a lot better than clouds, trees and flowers as supposed evidence for a cosmic creator.

That claim would be logically unfounded.

I agree. Things aren't looking any better for the god concept either. :]

[fr0d0]

You made the claim. You have failed to back it up. You lose.

I'm responding to your earlier absurd notion that logic can't disprove the concept for god. Get it through your head fr0d0.

This whole conversation stems from your claim that God is logically impossible. You made the claim. You back it up.

I'm asking you the question on logic. I'm free to answer your questions in any way I wish.

Except that's a complete non sequitur, faith as you know is unrelated to logic and the original premise of your argument.

Yes, you abandoned your argument and now proceed to turn this into some fabrication of your imagination.

Well thanks fr0d0 for making me do your homework as that was a waste of time; even an apologist or biblical literalist can recognise God is being metaphorically described like a mother and/or whose image is likened to a nurturing mother; but none of these passages explicitly state the character's both male and female. So the logical contradiction that god is defined as a spiritual entity yet is apparently biologically male still stands I'm afraid.

Funny I thought I just showed you examples from the bible where god is referred to by it's feminine character. You keep coming out with this logical contradiction accusation without ever backing it up.

Off the top of my head, nothing final here... let's take Genesis 1:27 :
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

So man, both male and female, was the image of God. Geddit?

Why do you find calling god 'logically impossible' to be nonsensical? This is especially odd since you like many theists argue for the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God and constantly affirm that God isn't bound by the rules of logic, because in other words, you believe this God created everything including the rules of logic, right? Therefore do you credit he can perform logically impossible actions as they're only perceived as 'impossible' from our puny perspective, correct?

God's transcendence makes no comment on his logical possibility, but his physical nature. You confuse the two.

Well in that case here's my objection: if that's what you're actually implying of course, in that it is impossible for anyone including you to ever know anything about the god you presuppose exists to start with. To say God is outside reality subsequently rules out any possibility of you understanding its existence through your reasoning and logic. If that's honestly your position then you can't make any attempt to describe his nature or attributes (e.g. loving, infinite, cosmic judge of creation, all-powerful) to anyone else, neither would anyone else have any good reason to think this half-baked concept is true, indeed WHY even bother claim there's any god(s) to start with?

I can know something of God. What did you think the bible was?

It can be supported by logic though, and is. It's just ultimately unknowable. Everything around you is hard evidence should you believe in a creator.

That's hardly a well-thought out rational statement from you. I'm starting to think you don't know what logic means, which would explain a lot. You're going to have to do a lot better than clouds, trees and flowers as supposed evidence for a cosmic creator.

It's a rationally sound statement. If your stance is one of knowledge then once again, please avail us of this unique insight.

[tavarish]

This whole conversation stems from your claim that God is logically impossible. You made the claim. You back it up.

Shifting the burden of proof! Yay! God is self-evident, to say an omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent deity with no empirical evidence does NOT exist is just plain illogical.

Checkmate.

Yes, you abandoned your argument and now proceed to turn this into some fabrication of your imagination.

Sounds like someone I know. Starts with a "f" and ends with something that rhymes with "shmodo"

Funny I thought I just showed you examples from the bible where god is referred to by it's feminine character. You keep coming out with this logical contradiction accusation without ever backing it up.

Off the top of my head, nothing final here... let's take Genesis 1:27 :
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

So man, both male and female, was the image of God. Geddit?

Didn't you say that the bible wasn't to be taken literally?

God's transcendence makes no comment on his logical possibility, but his physical nature. You confuse the two.

Explain God's physical nature please.

Thanks.

I can know something of God. What did you think the bible was?

A book written by people who wanted control of a very superstitious and scientifically illiterate people. What did YOU think the bible was?

It can be supported by logic though, and is. It's just ultimately unknowable. Everything around you is hard evidence should you believe in a creator.

That's hardly a well-thought out rational statement from you. I'm starting to think you don't know what logic means, which would explain a lot. You're going to have to do a lot better than clouds, trees and flowers as supposed evidence for a cosmic creator.

It's a rationally sound statement. If your stance is one of knowledge then once again, please avail us of this unique insight.

It is not a rationally sound statement, it is an argument from ignorance.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance