Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theistic Incoherence

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 3:56:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can you tell me the color of October? How about the smell of the number 7? Or how about the desires of a triangle?

When theists are asked to address the euthyphro dilemma (When God commands something, is it good because he commanded it or did he command it because it is good?) the most common response I have seen is something along the lines of;

"Neither, God and goodness are one in the same"

Theists tend to give similar responses in many cases, like when making the assertion that God accounts for the logical absolutes by suggesting that God is logic. The most commonly (and almost unanimously) accepted element of the definition of God is that he is a mind. However, to combine the concept of a mind with the concept of goodness itself or logic itself is completely incoherent as the terms are just as incompatible as the terms in the questions asked above. How can you make sense of combining two incompatible concepts, and if you can't then how can you believe in a concept that you cannot even comprehend?

BTW, is there a philosophical term or formal logical fallacy for this type of argument?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 4:56:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 3:56:49 PM, Double_R wrote:
Can you tell me the color of October? How about the smell of the number 7? Or how about the desires of a triangle?

Light Blue
Cinnamon
Depends what kind of triangle? An equilateral triangle is the number zero and desires to be a square. By division is assumes a whole.

Synesthesia


When theists are asked to address the euthyphro dilemma (When God commands something, is it good because he commanded it or did he command it because it is good?) the most common response I have seen is something along the lines of;


Anything doing God's will is considered by God to be good. So When god commands something it is an expression of his will, being he then only commands good things.

"Neither, God and goodness are one in the same"


Our definition of "good" is at odds.

Theists tend to give similar responses in many cases, like when making the assertion that God accounts for the logical absolutes by suggesting that God is logic. The most commonly (and almost unanimously) accepted element of the definition of God is that he is a mind. However, to combine the concept of a mind with the concept of goodness itself or logic itself is completely incoherent as the terms are just as incompatible as the terms in the questions asked above. How can you make sense of combining two incompatible concepts, and if you can't then how can you believe in a concept that you cannot even comprehend


Where does Logic come from? the philosophy of logic comes from the human mind comprehending the universe around it.

Is the law do identity a necessary truth or is it a descriptive truth of all we see in this universe. If our understanding of logic, math, physics, comes from OBSERVING the universe than the rules we observe come from the creator.

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. Why is this accepted?

I claim that my teacup is in front of the teapot, while my wife claims that it is behind the teapot. Taken at face value, those are contradictory statements - how can one and the same cup, at one and the same time, be in front and behind the teapot?

Because a real intellectual discussion requires the strenuous laying of a bridge, built from stones of words and mortar of language. This is the hard part that must be completed before a face to face discussion on the question can even truly be accomplished.

Not doing so results in straw man and referential fallacy.

BTW, is there a philosophical term or formal logical fallacy for this type of argument?

Informal fallacies do not make a statement true or false. They are make the argument less persuasive.

But if you looking for what fallacies the theist is committing, you could investigate equivocation, categorical error, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, Fallacy of composition.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:07:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:05:53 PM, Rant wrote:
Can you tell me the smell of a soul burning in Hell

Like a hotdog left on charcoals for too long.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:16:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:07:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:05:53 PM, Rant wrote:
Can you tell me the smell of a soul burning in Hell

Like a hotdog left on charcoals for too long.

I don't know ... I'm still reeling from the proof of the smell of October ... now I understand why there is no God ... obviously, its Christians that are ... incoherent.

And no, being inane is not a logical fallacy, its just being inane.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:24:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 3:56:49 PM, Double_R wrote:
Can you tell me the color of October? How about the smell of the number 7? Or how about the desires of a triangle?

When theists are asked to address the euthyphro dilemma (When God commands something, is it good because he commanded it or did he command it because it is good?) the most common response I have seen is something along the lines of;

"Neither, God and goodness are one in the same"

Theists tend to give similar responses in many cases, like when making the assertion that God accounts for the logical absolutes by suggesting that God is logic. The most commonly (and almost unanimously) accepted element of the definition of God is that he is a mind. However, to combine the concept of a mind with the concept of goodness itself or logic itself is completely incoherent as the terms are just as incompatible as the terms in the questions asked above. How can you make sense of combining two incompatible concepts, and if you can't then how can you believe in a concept that you cannot even comprehend?

BTW, is there a philosophical term or formal logical fallacy for this type of argument?

You probably want to read up on theological noncognitivism, which I think is one of the most important considerations when discussing the existance of God.

http://www.strongatheism.net...

The biggest problem is God lacks an accepted definition, so we have the God the creator,mother God if logic, the Inteligent Designer, The God of Morals, The God of 'Incipompletness',Berkley's God of Idealism,mets.metc.

A lot of them are mutually incompatible, and theists who advocate arguments for some of them automatically disqualify themselves for arguing for others.

I have a few arguments to show that a being with free will and aparently grounds logic/morals is incoherent, they aren't exactly hard to make.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:26:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 4:56:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Anything doing God's will is considered by God to be good. So When god commands something it is an expression of his will, being he then only commands good things.

Then you believe in divine command. That's not the same thing.

Because a real intellectual discussion requires the strenuous laying of a bridge, built from stones of words and mortar of language. This is the hard part that must be completed before a face to face discussion on the question can even truly be accomplished.

Not doing so results in straw man and referential fallacy.

I agree, which is why I have a problem with theists saying that God and Goodness are one in the same, or that God is logic.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:27:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically the issue boils down to is:

Theist: God exists!
Atheist: A what exists?
Theist: God
Atheist: Wtf is God?

Theist presents a concept of God, which often gets refuted, then God gets redefined, which gets refuted, etc. etc. the process continues infinitum with God being redefined at will.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:28:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:16:33 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:07:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:05:53 PM, Rant wrote:
Can you tell me the smell of a soul burning in Hell

Like a hotdog left on charcoals for too long.

I don't know ... I'm still reeling from the proof of the smell of October ... now I understand why there is no God ... obviously, its Christians that are ... incoherent.

And no, being inane is not a logical fallacy, its just being inane.

It was the color of October. That's how I see it. but I'm sure other colors are just as reasonable.

but the equilateral triangle is definitely 0. Zero does not have to mean Null. it is a point between 2 equidistant points -1 and 1. An equilateral triangle has a third point equally balanced on each side by two opposing points. Plus 0 is an even number. the most even number. Because it can be divided by 2 indefinitely. Well if you cut an equilateral triangle in half, you are left with 2 equilateral triangles that cut be cut in half... on and on.

the triangle obviously desires to be a square because tho 3 is the smallest stable number, most table are made with 4 legs. the fourth point is a point opposite of the equidistant point. Perfectly logical considering "as above, so below".

This is accomplished by dividing the triangle into 2 halves and then piecing them back together to make a square. A square being a whole: aka 1 (but really a square is 1.618033988.) At any point this is making a whole by division.

P that is what is known as checkmate.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:30:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Note also that divine command theory just begs the question of WTF is moral. Since the theist has now defined Good according to God's will/actions/commands, which means the only way to know about the content of what is 'Good' to make strong claims about the specific nature of God. This usually comes via. Religious takes on God, which obviously is dubious at best that it tells us anything about God, even assuming one does exist.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:30:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:28:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:16:33 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:07:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:05:53 PM, Rant wrote:
Can you tell me the smell of a soul burning in Hell

Like a hotdog left on charcoals for too long.

I don't know ... I'm still reeling from the proof of the smell of October ... now I understand why there is no God ... obviously, its Christians that are ... incoherent.

And no, being inane is not a logical fallacy, its just being inane.

It was the color of October. That's how I see it. but I'm sure other colors are just as reasonable.

but the equilateral triangle is definitely 0. Zero does not have to mean Null. it is a point between 2 equidistant points -1 and 1. An equilateral triangle has a third point equally balanced on each side by two opposing points. Plus 0 is an even number. the most even number. Because it can be divided by 2 indefinitely. Well if you cut an equilateral triangle in half, you are left with 2 equilateral triangles that cut be cut in half... on and on.

the triangle obviously desires to be a square because tho 3 is the smallest stable number, most table are made with 4 legs. the fourth point is a point opposite of the equidistant point. Perfectly logical considering "as above, so below".

This is accomplished by dividing the triangle into 2 halves and then piecing them back together to make a square. A square being a whole: aka 1 (but really a square is 1.618033988.) At any point this is making a whole by division.

P that is what is known as checkmate.

I am agreeing with you M ;-)

Generally when people start asking about the color of October or the smell of black they are ... crossing boundaries of sheer irrationality.

I'm sure those who utter it think they are stumbling into some grandiose revelation, but so do people smoking dope ... until the dope wears off and they read what they wrote.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:26:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 4:56:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Anything doing God's will is considered by God to be good. So When god commands something it is an expression of his will, being he then only commands good things.

Then you believe in divine command. That's not the same thing.

I'm saying "Good" is a description of things that are in-line with the will of God.

"Bad" or "Evil" is the lack of good.

So can God command something that is "Bad"? obviously not.


Because a real intellectual discussion requires the strenuous laying of a bridge, built from stones of words and mortar of language. This is the hard part that must be completed before a face to face discussion on the question can even truly be accomplished.

Not doing so results in straw man and referential fallacy.

I agree, which is why I have a problem with theists saying that God and Goodness are one in the same, or that God is logic.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:33:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:27:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Basically the issue boils down to is:

Theist: God exists!
Atheist: A what exists?
Theist: God
Atheist: Wtf is God?

Theist presents a concept of God, which often gets refuted, then God gets redefined, which gets refuted, etc. etc. the process continues infinitum with God being redefined at will.

Yep. And thanks for the article, that's pretty much what I was looking for.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:37:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:33:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:27:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
Basically the issue boils down to is:

Theist: God exists!
Atheist: A what exists?
Theist: God
Atheist: Wtf is God?

Theist presents a concept of God, which often gets refuted, then God gets redefined, which gets refuted, etc. etc. the process continues infinitum with God being redefined at will.

Yep. And thanks for the article, that's pretty much what I was looking for.

Yet you already said God has a mind.

So we can agree on what God is? Well after of course we agree on what "mind" is. Is the existence of this "mind" attribute scientifically verifiable?

Saying God is a physical humanoid living on the top of mount Olympus, is refuted.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:26:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 4:56:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Anything doing God's will is considered by God to be good. So When god commands something it is an expression of his will, being he then only commands good things.

Then you believe in divine command. That's not the same thing.

I'm saying "Good" is a description of things that are in-line with the will of God.

"Bad" or "Evil" is the lack of good.

So can God command something that is "Bad"? obviously not.

That's divine command theory. Of course this means that if God wanted you to rape a child then it would be good, to which theists will normally argue that God wouldn't do that, but that's getting into a completely different topic.

I don't take any issue with your definition of good in the sense that I can understand what you are talking about. It's a coherent concept, so an intelligent discussion can follow. But if you tell me that "God is goodness" then that's another story...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:42:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:30:42 PM, neutral wrote:
Generally when people start asking about the color of October or the smell of black they are ... crossing boundaries of sheer irrationality.

Yep, that was the point. Sorry you missed it. Next train is gana be a while.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:45:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:39:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:33:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:26:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 4:56:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Anything doing God's will is considered by God to be good. So When god commands something it is an expression of his will, being he then only commands good things.

Then you believe in divine command. That's not the same thing.

I'm saying "Good" is a description of things that are in-line with the will of God.

"Bad" or "Evil" is the lack of good.

So can God command something that is "Bad"? obviously not.

That's divine command theory. Of course this means that if God wanted you to rape a child then it would be good, to which theists will normally argue that God wouldn't do that, but that's getting into a completely different topic.

I don't take any issue with your definition of good in the sense that I can understand what you are talking about. It's a coherent concept, so an intelligent discussion can follow. But if you tell me that "God is goodness" then that's another story...

This sounds like a linguistic argument more than an epistemological. Sounds like i would agree with you on it's use and structure being nonsensical.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:23:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:42:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:30:42 PM, neutral wrote:
Generally when people start asking about the color of October or the smell of black they are ... crossing boundaries of sheer irrationality.

Yep, that was the point. Sorry you missed it. Next train is gana be a while.

Yeah, the point is that the only person barking that stupid question would be you RR.

So there is no fallacy for that kind of stupidity, but wen you are pretending that anyone other than you is asking questions like that? That is called a straw man.

Its a very common tactic among atheists, who appear utterly unable to grasp even the basic concepts of things theological.

Did you get that point? Or would you like to inquire about the scent of pride? Its not our fault you can't say, "Christians believe in Christ."

That's all on you.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:35:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:30:34 PM, Envisage wrote:
Note also that divine command theory just begs the question of WTF is moral. Since the theist has now defined Good according to God's will/actions/commands, which means the only way to know about the content of what is 'Good' to make strong claims about the specific nature of God. This usually comes via. Religious takes on God, which obviously is dubious at best that it tells us anything about God, even assuming one does exist.

You are aware that one of the major Apologetic proofs s that you can test God's wisdom for yourself.

You could for example openly lie to someone and see how that goes for you. I'm pretty sure you would quickly be able to concede that the consequences are 'bad'. There are longer and more complex proof that build on this principle.

Or, I suppose you could go into an epistemological tizzy about what is good and bad ... I'm sure that leads to practical, logical answers.

You could try the RR method of abandoning coherence entirely too? What is the color of October? And now we know what is right and wrong!

Silliness.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:38:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:35:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:30:34 PM, Envisage wrote:
Note also that divine command theory just begs the question of WTF is moral. Since the theist has now defined Good according to God's will/actions/commands, which means the only way to know about the content of what is 'Good' to make strong claims about the specific nature of God. This usually comes via. Religious takes on God, which obviously is dubious at best that it tells us anything about God, even assuming one does exist.

You are aware that one of the major Apologetic proofs s that you can test God's wisdom for yourself.

You could for example openly lie to someone and see how that goes for you. I'm pretty sure you would quickly be able to concede that the consequences are 'bad'. There are longer and more complex proof that build on this principle.

At best that can only determine what I subjectively feel is 'bad'. After all why should what I think have anything to do with what Godmhas commanded to be good? If I feel that killing people for fun is good, does that make it good according to God?

I imagine most theists would disagree, yet there is no disagreement there are people who genuinely believe that these notions are the opposite of popular belief.

Or, I suppose you could go into an epistemological tizzy about what is good and bad ... I'm sure that leads to practical, logical answers.

You could try the RR method of abandoning coherence entirely too? What is the color of October? And now we know what is right and wrong!

Silliness.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:02:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:23:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:42:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:30:42 PM, neutral wrote:
Generally when people start asking about the color of October or the smell of black they are ... crossing boundaries of sheer irrationality.

Yep, that was the point. Sorry you missed it. Next train is gana be a while.

Yeah, the point is that the only person barking that stupid question would be you RR.

So there is no fallacy for that kind of stupidity, but wen you are pretending that anyone other than you is asking questions like that? That is called a straw man.

I gave specific examples of arguments I've seen that are of equal incoherence to my opening questions. Hey, here's a crazy idea... How about you read the opening post before you criticize it?

Nah, it'll never work.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:05:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:02:35 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:23:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:42:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:30:42 PM, neutral wrote:
Generally when people start asking about the color of October or the smell of black they are ... crossing boundaries of sheer irrationality.

Yep, that was the point. Sorry you missed it. Next train is gana be a while.

Yeah, the point is that the only person barking that stupid question would be you RR.

So there is no fallacy for that kind of stupidity, but wen you are pretending that anyone other than you is asking questions like that? That is called a straw man.

I gave specific examples of arguments I've seen that are of equal incoherence to my opening questions. Hey, here's a crazy idea... How about you read the opening post before you criticize it?

Nah, it'll never work.

I'm 60% sure that I'm 75% correct about the desires of equilateral triangles.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:20:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:05:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:02:35 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:23:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:42:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:30:42 PM, neutral wrote:
Generally when people start asking about the color of October or the smell of black they are ... crossing boundaries of sheer irrationality.

Yep, that was the point. Sorry you missed it. Next train is gana be a while.

Yeah, the point is that the only person barking that stupid question would be you RR.

So there is no fallacy for that kind of stupidity, but wen you are pretending that anyone other than you is asking questions like that? That is called a straw man.

I gave specific examples of arguments I've seen that are of equal incoherence to my opening questions. Hey, here's a crazy idea... How about you read the opening post before you criticize it?

Nah, it'll never work.

I'm 60% sure that I'm 75% correct about the desires of equilateral triangles.

Now that's a confidence interval that I can trust!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:29:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:02:35 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:23:30 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:42:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:30:42 PM, neutral wrote:
Generally when people start asking about the color of October or the smell of black they are ... crossing boundaries of sheer irrationality.

Yep, that was the point. Sorry you missed it. Next train is gana be a while.

Yeah, the point is that the only person barking that stupid question would be you RR.

So there is no fallacy for that kind of stupidity, but wen you are pretending that anyone other than you is asking questions like that? That is called a straw man.

I gave specific examples of arguments I've seen that are of equal incoherence to my opening questions. Hey, here's a crazy idea... How about you read the opening post before you criticize it?

Nah, it'll never work.

The provide a source and citation. One sentence from the Bible, where there is clearly more than that ... is called non-contextual citation. An 'argument' it is not, its a single sentence.

Generally that requires:

Theses:
S1:
S2:
S3:
C:1

At the most basic level - you know, a whole paragraph.

So when you ripe off S3 and then start talking about the smell of October? Yep, its stupid.

These discussions would go a lot better if you atheists at least attempted to use logic and abandoned the pretense that only you guys understand logic ... even as you violate it. Cause clearly Christians, but nature of the faith choice, aren't smart enough to recognize what you are doing.

That being the case, who is the dumb on here? The one who thinks he's fooling people, or the one not fooled?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:33:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:38:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:35:31 PM, neutral wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:30:34 PM, Envisage wrote:
Note also that divine command theory just begs the question of WTF is moral. Since the theist has now defined Good according to God's will/actions/commands, which means the only way to know about the content of what is 'Good' to make strong claims about the specific nature of God. This usually comes via. Religious takes on God, which obviously is dubious at best that it tells us anything about God, even assuming one does exist.

You are aware that one of the major Apologetic proofs s that you can test God's wisdom for yourself.

You could for example openly lie to someone and see how that goes for you. I'm pretty sure you would quickly be able to concede that the consequences are 'bad'. There are longer and more complex proof that build on this principle.

At best that can only determine what I subjectively feel is 'bad'. After all why should what I think have anything to do with what Godmhas commanded to be good? If I feel that killing people for fun is good, does that make it good according to God?

I imagine most theists would disagree, yet there is no disagreement there are people who genuinely believe that these notions are the opposite of popular belief.

Or, I suppose you could go into an epistemological tizzy about what is good and bad ... I'm sure that leads to practical, logical answers.

You could try the RR method of abandoning coherence entirely too? What is the color of October? And now we know what is right and wrong!

Silliness.

Then try it out.

Logic is supposed to clarify things, not make them incoherent.

So openly and overtly lie to your boss. Then explain why the consequences are merely subjective. I think practically trumps epistemological circles.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 7:35:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
God isn't logic.

God is only a mind of truth. Logic can only be grounded by truth. Whatever is true can never be untrue. In order for God to change the truth he must commit non-truth (what was true would now not be true) but this could never happen because God is only a mind of truth.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:05:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:29:19 PM, neutral wrote:
These discussions would go a lot better if you atheists at least attempted to use logic and abandoned the pretense that only you guys understand logic ...

No, these discussions would go a lot better if you actually read and paid attention to posts before responding to them. But as every atheist who has came across you on this site knows from experience, that's not a realistic expectation.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:07:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 7:35:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
God isn't logic.

God is only a mind of truth. Logic can only be grounded by truth. Whatever is true can never be untrue. In order for God to change the truth he must commit non-truth (what was true would now not be true) but this could never happen because God is only a mind of truth.

Are you trying to demonstrate why this thread is necessary?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 8:17:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 8:07:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/14/2014 7:35:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
God isn't logic.

God is only a mind of truth. Logic can only be grounded by truth. Whatever is true can never be untrue. In order for God to change the truth he must commit non-truth (what was true would now not be true) but this could never happen because God is only a mind of truth.

Are you trying to demonstrate why this thread is necessary?

I don't understand the incoherence of a mind of truth.