>>>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.

Okay. So you finally agree that such concepts as "logical truth-value" are completely irrelevant to this debate.

>>>>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?

When you criticised an argument (more than one of them, as I remember) on the grounds that it did not conform to your truth tables.

>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.

And you are making THAT statement out of pure faith as well.

>>>>>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.

You can tell me this out of faith, right? Or do you claim to KNOW this. If so, we'll keep arguing over the point.

>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.

Exactly, you've asserted synonymy, but you have not defined (with any logical rigor) either of the synonyms. That's all I'm saying. Linguistically, you're okay, but you can't start asserting truth tables until you start doing logic.

>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.

You're completely full of shit on this one, but again we're off on a tangent (so to speak). Numbers are of absolutely no use in proving the Pythagorean theorem. (Actually, they are of surprisingly little value throughout all of mathematics.) But don't take my word for it. Go check "Elements", Book I, proposition 47.

>>>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.

Alright, so you admit that when you called me a liar (after I said consistent logics exist which are not as trivial as "is or is not"), you were full of shit.

So if we agree that multivalent logics exist, we must ask which, if any, are relavent to the problems at hand. You assert that with respect to the "existence" of "God", it is a classical, bivalent logic which is relevant. You do so without any evidence, or any arguments. It appears to be a matter of faith, and if so that's okay. Of course, it seems a little curious to me that people's faith seems so often to line up with their culture.

>>>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.

No, actually we WEREN'T talking about provability. We were talking about your "yes-no of existence." I asked you why you assumed this "yes-no" structure when there are other structures which are just as consistent, then you called me a liar and so began this part of the argument.

>>>>>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.

No, it's naive to think we KNOW, either way.

>>>>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.

No, it doesn't. Logic does not tell us which valence is favored, there are all sorts of consistent nonclassical logics. It is only your *faith* in the excluded middle which disagrees with me.

>>>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.

So I shouldn't care. I'm just a machine, placed here to do a job.

>> 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.

Ahh, if it feels good, do it.

But I'm not asking why I would *want* to experience this afterlife. I'm asking about its *purpose*, in the same sense that people use when talking about the "meaning of life." Once I'm in the supernatural realm, the supernatural becomes natural. Is there then another step on that ladder? Why does God exist? Who created Him?

>>>>>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.

Aww, man, so now you're doubting AGAIN that consistent multivalent logics exist?

I hope those were just some easy-A, lib.arts type courses. If they were meant to be a serious part of your education, you'd better ask for your money back.

>>>>>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".

Positive and negative energy? sigh

No, they don't come into existence because of the electromagnetic field. They come into existence in complete vacua, even with zero external electromagnetic field. When they do so, they ARE the electromagnetic field.

>That is to say, the energy given off by a neucleon to
>attract an electron within a magnetic field powers these
>"virtual photons",

No, nothing "powers" them. They do not conserve energy.

>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.

A word of warning: let this one drop. There are very few subjects on which I can be considered an authority. This, however, is one of them.

>>>>>>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.

Go down your list of people who commited atrocities in the name of Christ or God. Every one was able to convince multitudes of people that what they were doing was in complete accordance with scripture. If you want to argue with them, argue with them, not me.

>>>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.

Again, your argument is with him, not me. Like it or not, he's the most well known evangelical christian in the world right now, and it was your friends who put him on the world stage. If he is such a bad example of a Christian, then so are all those people who voted for him on the grounds of "moral values." They all claim to be Christians. I have no reason to trust you as a judge of scripture over any of those automobiles.

>>>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,

Oh great! SOMEONE CALL THE PAPERS AGAIN, DUDE'S ABOUT TO SHOW US SOME EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE...

>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,

What?!! There is evidence other than direct sight and sound.

>but it has
>been proven, repeatedly, that there are things we cannot see
>or hear. Do you disagree?

I don't think you understand your own question. But if you can give me scientific evidence that God exists, even if it doesn't involve direct visual or audible experience, we really will call the papers.

>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?

So you're saying that you believe in God *because of* your particular view of morality?

But seriously. I'm happy to admit that your view of morality is consistent with your belief in God. I think I admitted something along those lines a long time ago. But rationality requires more than just consistency.