- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by daniel58Or I could put a sock on my hand and act like it is my best friend and talk to that anytime.
God doesn't reveal Himself to us because He wants us to act on Faith, you don't have to be confused, just read the Bible and act like your Best Friend wrote it and you can talk to Him any time.
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo I can make two conclusions here:
This is not an example of revelation; rather, an experience which only confirms what has already been revealed.
1. God can never be comforting to me until I have learned of his ability to do so from the Bible.
2. God is will never show any attributes to to me that are not already revealed in the Bible.
But neither your explanation, nor my conclusions fully support your claim that we cannot know anything about God via any means other than the Bible. Surely If God was comforting to me, and it confirms what I read in the Bible, it is still information I have gained about God? But that would contradict your claim that the Bible is the sole source of information about God.
Point taken. However, I was pointing out the fallibility inherent in our reliance upon a source-dependent system... especially when the source is man-derived.
And what source were you talking about? Which part of logic is man-derived? You've lost me here. Or did you mean that when I tried to apply logic to what you said, it was what you said that was at fault?
Because logic dictates the same. If I am using a source, you would have to show a contradiction of my statements using that source: apples for apples.
Not so at all. You clearly do not understand even the very basic aspects of logic.
You wouldn't even know if there an incoherent argument was being made without something with which to compare the statements--- a suggested scenario as seen in the light of a known truth.
I can often tell when someone is being incoherent without the need of reference material. If you announce that God is both always right and always wrong, you are being incoherent, or you need to explain further, as what you have said in everyday English is incoherent regardless of whether you got the claim from the Quran or the Bible or some other document.
Interestingly though your argument leads to the conclusion that if I use the Quran as my source, you would be unable to contradict me without yourself first reading the Quran and then quoting it. Do you see how ridiculous it is getting?
Do you also see that I have shown you to be wrong about several points without once quoting from the Bible?
25 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhitehead2. God is will never show any attributes to to me that are not already revealed in the Bible.
So I can make two conclusions here:
1. God can never be comforting to me until I have learned of his ability to do so from the Bible.
2. God is will never show any attributes to to me that are not already revealed in the Bible.
But neither your explanation, nor my conclusions fully support your claim that we cannot know anything about God via any mean ...[text shortened]... ee that I have shown you to be wrong about several points without once quoting from the Bible?
You are confused. There is a general revelation about some of God's attributes, as seen in His creation. However, for us to know beyond that general revelation, divine intervention had to occur; thus, the Bible.
One can imagine all manner of super-powered beings, with all manner of attributes based solely on the available general revelation. Deriving comfort--- or terror--- from such an imagined creature cannot possibly measure up to either reaction to God's actual attributes... as described in the Bible.
And what source were you talking about? Which part of logic is man-derived?
As a system, logic was invented by man. In use, it is dependent upon what man puts into it. Garbage in, garbage out.
Not so at all. You clearly do not understand even the very basic aspects of logic.
Oh, absolutely. The entire treatise was specifically isolated on God's attributes--- as described by the Bible. There was nothing within a single posting which could even remotely be considered as relating to facts about the physical world. As no comments were made about the physical world, to show any type of contradiction you would be required to show the same as within the content of my source.
If you announce that God is both always right and always wrong...
Which is exactly what I said in the part you quoted when making this statement. "... a suggested scenario as seen in the light of a known truth." For someone to show the incoherence/absurdity/contradiction of any scenario, they would necessarily need to have a known truth. The subject of my posts was the attributes of God. Nothing within the posts even bordered on the mundane; nothing within the posts remotely suggested an absurdity; therefore, the only aspect left would be to use the same source as I did to show any of the 'illogic' contained within.
This was not accomplished by anyone.
Interestingly though your argument leads to the conclusion that if I use the Quran as my source, you would be unable to contradict me without yourself first reading the Quran and then quoting it. Do you see how ridiculous it is getting?
If you used the Qur'an, I would be required to either stick to the same source, or trump it with a better one. Surprise! The Bible wins again!
Do you also see that I have shown you to be wrong about several points without once quoting from the Bible?
I'm sure in your mind, you see it that way.
26 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo God must be wholly illogical as there is no way he would be subject to a system invented by man.
As a system, logic was invented by man. In use, it is dependent upon what man puts into it. Garbage in, garbage out.
Oh, absolutely. The entire treatise was specifically isolated on God's attributes--- as described by the Bible. There was nothing within a single posting which could even remotely be considered as relating to facts about the physical world. As no comments were made about the physical world, to show any type of contradiction you would be required to show the same as within the content of my source.
As I said, you don't know what logic is. Since my dispute didn't have anything to do with the physical world either (as far as I recall), I don't know why you are bringing that up. But surely you at least concede that God is supposedly real and exists in some form other than 'the Bible'? Or were you only concerned with 'what the Bible says' and not whether or not it is actually true?
What if I showed a contradiction within your posts? Surely I would not then need to bother with your source?
Nothing within the posts even bordered on the mundane; nothing within the posts remotely suggested an absurdity;
Or so you claim. But I showed that there was an absurdity within your posts, but you ignored it because I didn't start with scripture.
If you used the Qur'an, I would be required to either stick to the same source, or trump it with a better one. Surprise! The Bible wins again!
Oops. You stepped in it now. Nowhere in your previous argument do you say anything about better sources being able to trump the given source. You have argued that one can only contradict you with the same source as you used regardless of its truthfulness or validity. In fact you make quite clear that its relevance to the real world is irrelevant to your claim.
So once again, I have shown that you are posting absurdities without my ever once quoting scripture. QED
26 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo God must be wholly illogical as there is no way he would be subject to a system invented by man.
So God must be wholly illogical as there is no way he would be subject to a system invented by man.
Oh, absolutely. The entire treatise was specifically isolated on God's attributes--- as described by the Bible. There was nothing within a single posting which could even remotely be considered as relating to facts about the physical world. As no c ave shown that you are posting absurdities without my ever once quoting scripture. QED
God is subject to no one, no system. He is true to Himself alone. If man has some system of thinking in which God appears contradictory or illogical, the fault is with the system of thinking--- not with God.
That being said, when one is armed with the full body of truth concerning God and His attributes, no contradictions are left.
As I said, you don't know what logic is.
Based on your misapplication, I'm beginning to think you are the one in the dark here.
Since my dispute didn't have anything to do with the physical world either (as far as I recall), I don't know why you are bringing that up.
Your recall needs a tune up. From your June 22 posting:
“So if you announced "2 plus 2 is 5", no amount of contradictory evidence would have been accepted by you unless it began with Scripture?”
Last time I checked, counting and math are used by man to describe the physical world, or some aspect of creation. Real or imagined, all things countable would be part of or dependent upon that physical world.
But surely you at least concede that God is supposedly real and exists in some form other than 'the Bible'? Or were you only concerned with 'what the Bible says' and not whether or not it is actually true?
It is not necessary to concede an obvious fact. The Bible describes God as real, so it's a moot point. With respect to 'what the Bible says,' the answer is affirmative. Why? Because the Bible has been long-established as the only authority on reality.
What if I showed a contradiction within your posts? Surely I would not then need to bother with your source?
My posts are not Scripture. If my handling of the same is in error, I would expect those who know to point out the error. It is unlikely that you would qualify to be the one to notice any such errors.
But I showed that there was an absurdity within your posts, but you ignored it because I didn't start with scripture.
By all means, refresh my memory.
Nowhere in your previous argument do you say anything about better sources being able to trump the given source.
By "better source" I was referring to the forementioned "known truth." The Bible is our best source of known truth. The Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, or any and all other books dedicated or related to spiritual enlightenment ALL must be viewed in light of the Bible.
That being said, within the confines of such tomes as mentioned, one is able to find multiple contradictions/absurdities/incoherence--- regardless of the interpretation methods employed. So it is possible to show the self-contradictions without even bringing the known truth of the Bible into the mix. However, in light of the claims of each, it's best to stick with the Bible as the ruler.
In fact you make quite clear that its relevance to the real world is irrelevant to your claim.
Hardly. You're misapplying my clear intended meanings.
So once again, I have shown that you are posting absurdities without my ever once quoting scripture. QED
Again, in your mind, I'm sure it is so, but your 'was to be' remains woefully incomplete.
26 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI see you are avoiding admitting that the accusation is true. God, according to you, is not subject to logic (a man made system) and is therefore illogical. He doesn't 'appear' illogical. He is illogical and you admit it. We don't need to call it a 'fault' if you simply don't like the word, but then you used it not me 🙂
God is subject to no one, no system. He is true to Himself alone. If man has some system of thinking in which God appears contradictory or illogical, the fault is with the system of thinking--- not with God.
That being said, when one is armed with the full body of truth concerning God and His attributes, no contradictions are left.
But God is not subject to silly rules like 'contradictions' now is he?
Your recall needs a tune up. From your June 22 posting:
“So if you announced "2 plus 2 is 5", no amount of contradictory evidence would have been accepted by you unless it began with Scripture?”
Last time I checked, counting and math are used by man to describe the physical world, or some aspect of creation. Real or imagined, all things countable would be part of or dependent upon that physical world.
So God is uncountable? Interesting. What about his angels? Or are they too independent of mans silly invention of 'counting'.
You do realize that you will simply have to keep on generating more and more nonsense to cover up the previous nonsense simply because you cant admit that your original assertion was in error. So funny.
It is not necessary to concede an obvious fact. The Bible describes God as real, so it's a moot point. With respect to 'what the Bible says,' the answer is affirmative. Why? Because the Bible has been long-established as the only authority on reality.
So it is reality we are talking about. A few moments ago you were denying any connection with reality. Just can't keep your story straight can you?
My posts are not Scripture. If my handling of the same is in error, I would expect those who know to point out the error. It is unlikely that you would qualify to be the one to notice any such errors.
Maybe not, but to dismiss my criticism based on the fact that I did not start by quoting scripture points more to the fact that you don't have any defense to my criticism. If you had simply said from the very beginning that you simply ignored my posts because you doubted my education or intelligence then maybe I would have left you alone.
By "better source" I was referring to the forementioned "known truth." The Bible is our best source of known truth. The Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, or any and all other books dedicated or related to spiritual enlightenment ALL must be viewed in light of the Bible.
Nevertheless that does not resolve the fact that you made the claim that the subject matter must be quoted for any argument to be relevant. You later denied needing to follow that principle. You contradicted yourself.
26 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see you are avoiding admitting that the accusation is true. God, according to you, is not subject to logic (a man made system) and is therefore illogical.
I see you are avoiding admitting that the accusation is true. God, according to you, is not subject to logic (a man made system) and is therefore illogical. He doesn't 'appear' illogical. He is illogical and you admit it. We don't need to call it a 'fault' if you simply don't like the word, but then you used it not me 🙂
That being said, when later denied needing to follow that principle. You contradicted yourself.
You’re mixing apples with oranges and wondering at the resulting salad. Logic is a system of thinking which is man-derived. As such, it is bound to have error in some form or another. Inevitable. The proponents of logic have declared its limitations, and yet you carry on as though logic and logic alone is the final arbiter of reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. This--- along with your wild conclusions--- leads me to believe that perhaps you don’t understand logic as clearly as you imagine.
He doesn't 'appear' illogical. He is illogical and you admit it. We don't need to call it a 'fault' if you simply don't like the word, but then you used it not me.
Again, you misunderstand. Armed with limited information and/or an improper scale of values, anything in all of creation can be construed to appear illogical. Once properly armed, contradictions/absurdities disappear with the removal of ignorance.
But God is not subject to silly rules like 'contradictions' now is he?
God has never contradicted Himself, so I guess consistency is somehow important to Him.
So God is uncountable?
Well, He is a person, so I guess He counts as one. Before there was anything (created) there was the One (uncreated). Something... as opposed to nothing, ergo, one.
What about his angels? Or are they too independent of mans silly invention of 'counting'.
Those created beings number in the billions, apparently. Are you really not getting the distinctions, or are you just trying to be cute?
So it is reality we are talking about. A few moments ago you were denying any connection with reality. Just can't keep your story straight can you?
I think I was talking about the mundane, physical world. Just can’t keep the argument straight, can you?
Maybe not, but to dismiss my criticism based on the fact that I did not start by quoting scripture points more to the fact that you don't have any defense to my criticism.
No defense was necessary, because anything you had to offer was based on human wisdom. If the best that human wisdom can offer is neither a confirmation nor a denial of God’s existence, what could your input possibly add to a discussion about His attributes?
Nevertheless that does not resolve the fact that you made the claim that the subject matter must be quoted for any argument to be relevant. You later denied needing to follow that principle. You contradicted yourself.
In the case that I was referring to, i.e., a discussion about the attributes of God, the only retort would have to come from the one source about Him. Otherwise, what could the argument be about?
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually, all I want from you is an admission in plainer English than you seem to wish to commit to, that God is illogical.
You’re mixing apples with oranges and wondering at the resulting salad. Logic is a system of thinking which is man-derived. As such, it is bound to have error in some form or another. Inevitable. The proponents of logic have declared its limitations, and yet you carry on as though logic and logic alone is the final arbiter of reality. Nothing could be ...[text shortened]... ions--- leads me to believe that perhaps you don’t understand logic as clearly as you imagine.
Of course when you say that 'logic' is bound to have some 'error' you descend into incoherence as it is a logical impossibility for logic to be in error.
Again, you misunderstand. Armed with limited information and/or an improper scale of values, anything in all of creation can be construed to appear illogical. Once properly armed, contradictions/absurdities disappear with the removal of ignorance.
And again, you refuse to admit what you have already said in a round about way. You have claimed that God is not subject to logic. You now wish to get out of it by claiming that he only appears illogical when armed with limited information, but that is not your original claim. You original claim clearly states that logic is an invention of man and God is not bound by it.
Those created beings number in the billions, apparently. Are you really not getting the distinctions, or are you just trying to be cute?
They number in the billions? But you claimed numbers were invented by man and could not possibly applied to something not of this world such as angels. What is this distinction that I am not getting? Let me remind you what you said as you appear to have forgotten already:
Real or imagined, all things countable would be part of or dependent upon that physical world.
That directly contradicts your current admission that God and his angels are countable.
... what could your input possibly add to a discussion about His attributes?
Merely the fact that you were talking incoherent nonsense. Nothing major really. After all you firmly believe that neither God nor yourself are bound by logic or common sense or anything silly like that.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, all I want from you is an admission in plainer English than you seem to wish to commit to, that God is illogical.
Actually, all I want from you is an admission in plainer English than you seem to wish to commit to, that God is illogical.
Of course when you say that 'logic' is bound to have some 'error' you descend into incoherence as it is a logical impossibility for logic to be in error.
Again, you misunderstand. Armed with limited information and/or an improp ...[text shortened]... hat neither God nor yourself are bound by logic or common sense or anything silly like that.
Why would you want me to say something to which I do not agree?
Of course when you say that 'logic' is bound to have some 'error' you descend into incoherence…
Logic is limited. It cannot find truth. It can state truth, but only with the correct input.
… as it is a logical impossibility for logic to be in error.
You are “sorite.”
And again, you refuse to admit what you have already said in a round about way. You have claimed that God is not subject to logic. You now wish to get out of it by claiming that he only appears illogical when armed with limited information, but that is not your original claim. You original claim clearly states that logic is an invention of man and God is not bound by it.
You are confused again. God is limited to one thing, and one thing only: His attributes. He always acts in accord with His own attributes. No other restrictions apply. For instance, there are laws of nature--- created by God--- and yet He is not subject or limited to any of them, even if He chooses to abide by them at any given point in time.
They number in the billions? But you claimed numbers were invented by man and could not possibly applied to something not of this world such as angels. That directly contradicts your current admission that God and his angels are countable.
I never said anything about angels other than that they are created beings. As such, they are countable. Although we can say God is one, the only one, the three-in-one, the many-breasted-one, these are designations for our benefit. God Himself is not containable.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBecause you said it already, but now you want to avoid it.
Why would you want me to say something to which I do not agree?
Logic is limited. It cannot find truth. It can state truth, but only with the correct input.
Quite true. But logic is never in error. When you claimed that it could be, you were being incoherent.
You are confused again. God is limited to one thing, and one thing only: His attributes. He always acts in accord with His own attributes. No other restrictions apply. For instance, there are laws of nature--- created by God--- and yet He is not subject or limited to any of them, even if He chooses to abide by them at any given point in time.
In what way am I confused? You have not stated anything here that contradicts what I said. So where am I confused? It is far more likely that it is you that is confused as you keep contradicting yourself.
First you say God is not limited by logic, then you start trying to tone it down by saying he only appears not to be limited by it and that with further information he will in fact be found to be logical. But you cant seem to make up your mind.
I never said anything about angels other than that they are created beings. As such, they are countable.
But are they: ... part of or dependent upon that physical world. ?
If not, then you were in error were you not?
Although we can say God is one, the only one, the three-in-one, the many-breasted-one, these are designations for our benefit. God Himself is not containable.
Ah. Trying to use subtle language tricks to try and avoid admitting your mistakes? We are talking about 'countable' not 'containable'. God is either countable - and your claim was false - or he is not. His containability is irrelevant.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadQuite true. But logic is never in error. When you claimed that it could be, you were being incoherent.
Because you said it already, but now you want to avoid it.
Logic is limited. It cannot find truth. It can state truth, but only with the correct input.
Quite true. But logic is never in error. When you claimed that it could be, you were being incoherent.
You are confused again. God is limited to one thing, and one thing only: His attri ...[text shortened]... ither countable - and your claim was false - or he is not. His containability is irrelevant.
Did I say logic was in error (other than giving you an example that clearly shows how one could use logic and end up in error), or are you simply trying to put words in my mouth?
Let’s set the record straight. Here’s what you said:
“So God must be wholly illogical as there is no way he would be subject to a system invented by man.”
To which, I responded:
“God is subject to no one, no system. He is true to Himself alone. If man has some system of thinking in which God appears contradictory or illogical, the fault is with the system of thinking--- not with God. That being said, when one is armed with the full body of truth concerning God and His attributes, no contradictions are left.”
[emphasis added]
Later, you--- not me--- said:
“God, according to you, is not subject to logic (a man made system) and is therefore illogical.”
These are your erroneous conclusions, not my statements. At length, I have responded to your nonsense charges, attempting to delineate the difference between the attributes of God (His only so-called limitations) and lesser aspects of conceptualization.
In what way am I confused? You have not stated anything here that contradicts what I said. So where am I confused?
You are confused because you inexplicably assume that God must be subject to any and all rules--- and if that weren’t enough, especially those rules conjured up by man! I have stated some things in agreement with your statements, but most of them in stark contradiction to your statements. Namely, while God is not illogical with respect to contradicting Himself---even if He appears so to one equipped with insufficient information--- He is nonetheless not subject to the rules of logic as understood by man.
It is far more likely that it is you that is confused as you keep contradicting yourself.
First you say God is not limited by logic, then you start trying to tone it down by saying he only appears not to be limited by it and that with further information he will in fact be found to be logical. But you cant seem to make up your mind.
I think it’s more like you can’t make up my mind so you can argue with a statement that I’m not making.
But are they: ... part of or dependent upon that physical world. ?
If not, then you were in error were you not?
The angels were created, thus dependent upon a Creator.
Ah. Trying to use subtle language tricks to try and avoid admitting your mistakes? We are talking about 'countable' not 'containable'. God is either countable - and your claim was false - or he is not. His containability is irrelevant.
God was the something when there was nothing. How would you count that, exactly?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
29 Jun 09
FreakyKBH,
I'm sorry for interrupting, but couldn't logic be part of god's nature? That is how the presupposiotionalists account for the universal abstracts that comprise the laws of logic after all.
So the only reason that god follows the laws of logic is that this reflects god's nature. If you think about it this is analagous to the solution to the problem of whether god can do evil.
Then any contradictions involving god arrived at by humans you can just blame on faulty premises due to the limitations of human knowledge.
That's how I'd play it if I believed in god anyway.