>>Logic is philosophy. Is this not clear?
>
>Logic is a branch of philosophy; one of many. Theology is
>another branch of philosophy. Logic and theology are
>generally considered distinct (some would even say disjunct)
>fields of study.

Theology is not a branch of philosophy.

>>What is unclear?
>
>supernatural- not bound by this world
>being - a thinking object
>perfect - perfect
>omnipotent - can do all
>omniscient - knows all
>originator - creator
>ruler - moral ruler
>universe - everything that is
>
>I don't ask you to define any of these concepts rigorously.
>In fact, I contend that to do so would be impossible, or at
>the very least unfulfilling. This is why theology is not
>the same thing as logic.

That made absolutely no sense.

>>No, we're talking about "existence". Mine, yours and God's.
>
>I don't remember doubting your existence, or my own. And I
>will point out that there are plenty of people out there who
>believe God "exists" without believing that he "thinks" in
>any sense like we do.

You asked me for a definition of existence. I can only give you a personal answer. Remember, I never claimed I could prove God's or have any beginning understanding of what His existence consists of since He simply IS. I cannot fathom eternity.

>>Actually, you are completely wrong. That's a webster's
>>definition.
>
>Hahahahahaha! Webster was not a logician. You'll have to
>try harder than that. An assertion of synonymy can serve as
>a definition only if the synonym is itself well defined.

There isn't any ambiguity in "exact accordance with that which is". Perhaps you just don't understand it.

>>Name one.
>
>The pythagorean theorem is the first one which comes to
>mind.

What? That's a provable, distinct mathematical equation which makes a right triangle. It was founded on principle, and proven later, like everything.

>>>Again, you have not defined "that which is." And since you
>>>have not defined truth, you have also not been able to
>>>justify your assumption that a boolean logic is relevant.
>>>Believe it or not, there are consistent logics out there
>>>which are not as trivial as "is or is not."
>>
>>I defined truth by a friggin dictionary. If you don't
>>understand the dictionary's definition, I simply cannot help
>>you. As far as your consistent logic argument, that is just
>>a lie.
>
>I advise you to close your friggin dictionary and open a
>fuckin encyclopedia. Look up "nonclassical logics", "modal
>logics", "quantum logic", "topos theory", "multivalent
>logics." You will see that I'm being quite honest. What is
>it with you always assuming that people are lying to you?
>Have some faith in your fellow man.

Everything you just listed still has an "is or is not" answer. Just because it can't be PROVEN, does not make it beyond this incredibly simple concept. God's existence is the same way.

>>>>I
>>>>believe there is a God and do not see any reason for living
>>>>if there is not.
>>>
>>>Sounds to me like you lead a very sad life. I'm sorry.
>>
>>Thanks, but I don't need pity. Having lived where an
>>atheist lives and where I live now, I certainly pity the
>>atheist.
>
>Okay, let's leave it up to testimonials. I was raised a
>Christian. Looking back to "where a Christian lives", I
>pity the theist.

It's your choice.

>>I have never used logic to prove or disprove God's existence
>>throughout this entire conversation. I have used logic to
>>prove that there either IS or IS NOT a God (one way or the
>>other, it is a FACT that there either IS or IS NOT a God...
>>do you disagree?).
>
>I thought you said nothing could be proven, even in
>principle!?

It is not a principle that there either IS or IS NOT a God. This is a simple fact. The answer cannot be proven in our worldly realm, but there either IS or IS NOT a God. Is this insanley difficult or something?

>And I resolutely disagree with your assertion that the
>subject matter of theology must conform to a bivalent logic.
> Even the physics of the real world does not conform to a
>bivalent logic. It seems pretty foolhardy to hold to this
>assumption in theology after it has failed in so many other
>contexts.

There either IS or IS NOT a God. Do you disagree? Answer the question this time.

>>You're reading way too into this simple
>>equation. I'm not playing tricks.
>
>You are criticizing other people's arguments on logical
>grounds, despite the fact that you clearly have a very
>shallow knowledge of the subject.

There either IS or IS NOT a God. This is the only logical premise I've made this entire time. We are still at phase one.

>>>More precisely, it cannot be proven without axioms, nor can
>>>it be disproven. We all need to choose our own axioms. You
>>>choose to assume God exists, I do not. I'm happy to admit
>>>that your view is probably just as valid as my own, as far
>>>as logic is concerned.
>>
>>As far as logic is concerned, possibly yes. But we disagree
>>in terms of rationality, and if "purpose in life" is a means
>>for a valid premise in a logical equation, then I probably
>>disagree with you on a logical level as well.
>>
>>>You, on the other hand, repeatedly
>>>seem to imply that we are being illogical, yet you have
>>>never been precise enough to point out where.
>>
>>I just haven't heard an answer to the question of what the
>>meaning of life is from your perspective... and you still
>>haven't given me one. This is the only thing I've pointed
>>out.
>
>Okay, your only criticism of my argument is that I haven't
>told you "the meaning of life." Sorry, dude, I'll have to
>get back to you on that one.

OK. I believe I've found it. That's our difference.

>Why don't you tell me what the meaning of life is "from your
>perspective."

Based on my faith and studies, the immediate followers of Christ (within a century of His death) had it down. The purpose of life is to be with God when we die.

>>I'm not going to try and logically prove anything like God
>>or love or air or existence. I can rationalize these things
>>to a valid point, IMHO, but I will never be able to prove
>>them.
>
>Now you're making my argument.

No, I'm not. There still remains my statement that there either IS or IS NOT a God. Nothing I have said will contradict this.

>>If sure means, "certainly knowing or believing", then you
>>are not sure, by definition.
>
>I'm as sure as I need to be.

...

>>You chose the word "maybe", which was weak to begin with. I
>>chose the phrase "could be", which was the only appropriate
>>response to your ambiguity.
>
>It wasn't the ambiguity that bothered me. Indeed, it is my
>contention that a vast ambiguity is necessarily inherent in
>the subject matter. What bothers me is the fact that you
>are so quick to dismiss statements on the assumption that
>you are being lied to. Seems pretty paranoid.

It was a response TO ambiguity... sorry it had to start off that way.

>>Where does it come from?
>
>Where do I come from? Where do you come from? Why assume
>that everything "comes from" something else. There are
>counterexamples.

Name one.

>>Some of the greatest existentialist thinkers in history
>>didn't care whether or not the world existed, so no, those
>>statements are not contradictory. See Nietzsche.
>
>Let's not trivialize.

Seriously, let's not.

>>>Okay, so you agree that I'm not validating anyone's crimes.
>>
>>No, YOU may not be (and I don't believe you are a bad
>>person), but your philosophy certainly lends itself to
>>validate the crimes of others. If we live in a relativist
>>world (which, if I'm not mistaken, you believe we do) then
>>every single moral principle is as valid as yours and mine.
>>I understand that you don't support the crimes of others,
>>personally, but your philosophy does. Dig?
>
>Okay, I'll admit that my philosophy *could be used* to
>validate crimes, as soon as you admit that your philosophy
>*has been used* to validate (and to commit) crimes.

If you say that horrible atrocities have and continue to be committed in the name of Christ and God, then I wholeheartedly agree with you... but I've never found any justification for these actions in the Bible. Occasionally, a quote is taken out of context, but I've never seen actual evidence that would support the Crusades of yesterday or today. Judeo-Christian ethic is based on love and alms... not wars and oil.

>>>>>>I'm not
>>>>>>asking for justification from God... right now, I'm simply
>>>>>>arguing the point that a Rwandan genocide is wrong. If you
>>>>>>honestly believe their actions are as valid as your own (as
>>>>>>you just stated), I simply do not believe you. peace,
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, that is the opposite of what I said! I made a point
>>>>>of saying what they did was wrong, and that they deserve to
>>>>>be judged, and punished. And again, I am the one saying it!
>>>>> I'm not leaving the judgement up to some space alien that I
>>>>>"believe" to exist.
>>>>
>>>>OK. Go back. You literally said that their beliefs were as
>>>>valid as your own. Now you are going back on this.
>>>
>>>I did not say that, literally or figuratively. You're
>>>welcome to "go back" yourself if you like. If I'm able to
>>>say that I exist without assuming I was produced by a
>>>conscious creator, I can just as easily say that morality
>>>exists without a conscious creator.
>>
>>Wait... define "exist".
>
>Haha. I'm not the one pretending that logical rigor is
>available to us.

Neither am I. I am open to the concept that either Something exists or nothing exists. But I gotta say on this one, that rationality heavily favors the whole "things exist" side of things.

>>>>Also, you said that your morality is based on your own
>>>>survival... what is the point of survival without God?
>>>
>>>I'm getting a kick out of it so far.
>>
>>And, after however many posts now, you have not answered the
>>question. peace,
>
>What question, the meaning of life? I'll get that to you as
>soon as I figure it out. Why don't you tell us what you
>think it is, and we'll see if anyone finds it compelling.
>Maybe you could start an OkayCult.

There's where we differ. I stated it earlier. Every religion started as a cult, then a sect, then a denomination... but my ideas certainly aren't original, to say the least. peace,