>>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.

I'm going by history books... I don't see philosophy as something outside of and bigger than religion.

As far as definitions for specific words go... I'm not really sure how specific you want me to get. I'm not a linguist, so I figured Webster might be a safe route. If we can't get more specific than a linguist, perhaps nothing--no word in the history of language--will ever be defined.

>>>
>>>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.

When did I try? I made one logical premise using common English words with definitions coming from one of the top linguists in the history of our language, and you contend that it is ambiguous. I'm not trying to prove God's existence, I'm simply making the statement that God does or does not exist.

>>>>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.

I can't tell you how or by what physical standards God exists, but I can tell you that He either does or does not exist. If His physical nature is unlike that of our own or unbound to our universe or the only thing that is actually real or made of Pla-Doh, He still exists. If there is void, He does not.

>>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)

Whatever IS is TRUE and whatever is TRUE IS.. Consider them synonymous, if you wish. Whatever is true is whatever is real, and whatever is real may or may not be within our physical realm or understanding.

>>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?

Here is the pythagorean theorem:

a-squared + b-squared = c-squared

It was a principle at first, then when numbers were put in place of the variables, it was proven to be true. So, yes, I am accusing you of not making any sense.

>>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."

ok, multivalent means "many meanings" and bivalent, I assume, means "two meanings". That doesn't exclude them from anything. When we are talking about existence (which is the context of what we are talking about), all of these things have either a yes or no answer.

>>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.

No, actually, we WERE talking about provability, so you wasted your time with this whole argument, because I don't disagree with the facts you've put forth. You put these facts forth with the notion that they defy the yes-no of existence--this is what I disagreed with, and still do.


>>>>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.

It's naive to think that God both can and cannot exist.

>>>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.

So there is a possibility for God to exist and not exist simultaneously? This is naive. The simplist level of logic disagrees with you.

>>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?

I'm a pretty simple dude.

Sorry, but I'm a little
>disappointed. Why should I care if I'm with God when I die?

Because that's the reason why you're here.

> I mean, if I'm dead, I won't even be conscious anymore,
>will I?

I believe you will.

And if I am conscious, what is the meaning of this
>"afterlife"?

Eternal fulfillment... imagine every overwhelming moment of joy you've ever experienced on this earth... then imagine having that joy for eternity.

>>>>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.

No, it won't. I've taken several logic courses... name ONE.


>
>>>>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."

Perfect example! So, we have "virtual photons" which seemingly come from nothing, but in reality are in existence because of an electromagnetic field that is created by positive and negative energy given off by various "ons". That is to say, the energy given off by a neucleon to attract an electron within a magnetic field powers these "virtual photons", which are really just an illustration of the magnetic field particle itself. This is why "virtual photons" are also "responsible" for repelling electrons from other electrons, because the electrons actually create these fields as well.

>
>>>>>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.

Name one.

>>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.

Now you are being just as rhetorical as the "Christian" in the White House. I can call a car a walrus, but our language and the actions and physical makeup of the car (that is, not having tusks or making weird floppy movements) do not allow me to be valid.

>>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.

Actually, no. Rationality doesn't limit itself to physical bounds, for science tells us that we mighty humans can't actually see or hear anything without our eyes and ears creating an understandable illusion. All we really know are the things we are capable of seeing and hearing, but it has been proven, repeatedly, that there are things we cannot see or hear. Do you disagree?

Now, as far as the existence of God goes, I would also like to point out that MY rationality CAN differ from yours, hence our discussion in morals. I believe in a basic, absolute morality, and because of this, it is rational for me to believe in God. You, on the other hand, believe in a relativist morality, so it is rational for you not to believe in God. This is where we differ. Do you agree?

>>>>>>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.

Sweet. I would be a little depressed if they were.