>>>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.

Don't let DeleteMe take over for you. He seems to know a few things, enough to confuse you.

Some would say that everything which involves thought, even in the slightest, is a branch of philosophy. On those grounds . . . well, maybe I see your point.

>>>What is unclear?
>>
>>supernatural- not bound by this world

Okay, define "bound" and "this world"

>>being - a thinking object

define "thinking" and "object"

>>perfect - perfect

"perfect"

>>omnipotent - can do all

"do", "all"

>>omniscient - knows all

"know", and "all" again

>>originator - creator

"creator"

>>ruler - moral ruler

"moral" and "ruler"

>>universe - everything that is

okay, define "everything." And you still haven't told me what your meaning of "is" 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.

The point is that you're not making any progress at turning your theology into a logical structure. You're only making it more and more ambiguous and cumbersome. Now, elsewhere, you're saying you're not trying to prove anything. This implies to me that you're not trying to use logic. If that is the case, great. Let's let this drop.

>>>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.

So you can say resolutely that God "exists", even though you can't tell me what you mean by that statement. You're right. Theology is not a part of philosophy.

>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.

Okay, then. Define for me "what is." And you'd better not use the word "truth." (I'd also like to see a definition of "exact accordance", but let's keep it simple)

>>>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.

And you accuse ME of not making any sense?

>>>>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.

Are you serious!? Look at the word "multivalent." Look at the etymology of that word, and compare it with the etymology of the word "bivalent."

>Just because it can't be PROVEN, does not make it
>beyond this incredibly simple concept. God's existence is
>the same way.

We're not arguing about provability anymore. We're arguing about valence, about your contention that a major series of advances in mathematics and logic, involving at least two centuries of dedicated work, never happened. Maybe now every mathematician in the world is lying.


>>>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?

No, just naive.

>>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.

Yes, I desagree, and I have been all along.

>>>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.

ARRIGHT! HISTORY IS ABOUT TO BE MADE! SOMEBODY CALL THE PAPERS, WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR THE "MEANING OF LIFE" RIGHT HERE ON OKAYACTIVIST!

>>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.

That's all you've got? Sorry, but I'm a little disappointed. Why should I care if I'm with God when I die? I mean, if I'm dead, I won't even be conscious anymore, will I? And if I am conscious, what is the meaning of this "afterlife"?

>>>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.

No, nothing *you* have said will contradict this. However a quick perusal of any textbook on modern mathematical logic most certainly will.


>>>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.

The quantum excitations of the electromagnetic field, the so-called "virtual photons."


>>>>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.

Haha. Well others certainly have.

>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.

Tell that to the "Christian" in the white house.


>>>>>>>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.

Oh, so you want to be rational! I take that to mean that you will judge facts by their evidenciary support. If so, you will likely come to the conclusion that "something" exists, but "God" doesn't.

>>>>>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,

Your ideas aren't original. On that we can agree.