Reason is more basic than God / God is bound to reason

[Curious George]

Though even our apple may have a infinite amount of data, infinite does not preclude it from having a definition. The clearest example of this is the distance between two points. Were you to half the distance continually between two point you could do so infinitely. However the distance does exist and is clearly demonstrable with basic calculus. Thus
limits.

[Curious George]

Sound is not when waves hit our ears. Our ears can be left out of that definition entirely. And while it may be interesting to ponder whether or not anything exists without our perception it is an egotistical concept that I imagine few actually believe.

[Curious George]

If identity is not a rule that has to be followed then it is truth which cannot be escaped.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Curious George

If identity is not a rule that has to be followed then it is truth which cannot be escaped.

Fair enough.

Truth is the knife that carves it.

[Hawkins]

Originally Posted by The Doors of Perception

A is A and God is God. The first is used in logic and the second in religion. But which is truly more basic? God existing is not even fundamently true, many people reject one's existence based on evidence and inference. So, God is God may not even be true if no Gods exist. A is A is fundamentally true, and applies to anything from God to nature to science, etc. So, reason is more fundamental than God, which means if a God exists it is not the All and is bound to the laws of thought. This also means that an illogical idea of God is a God that does not exist. Perhaps "spirit" is some sort of pure knowledge, but whether it is or not it doesn't seem likely salvation can be achieved by denying facts, reason, evidence, and believing blindly.

Reasoning depends on intelligence, absolute intelligence but not just relative intelligence. However, what humans can acquire is rather relative intelligence. We are bound by the living environment which is a 3D space (called universe in human term). We can't reason beyond that. We can't actually reason far beyond what humans ever experienced.

That's the limit of our reasoning. "Spirit" however lies beyond the 3D realm we are living, and we can hardly experience before we ourselves become a spirit.

Truth however can be categorized as follows,

1) Truth which can be recognised by humans (such as everything inside our 3D realm
2) Truth which cannot be reached by humans, or not yet (such as everything outside our 3D realm
3) falsehood

So what you are arguing here with your so-called "facts, reason, evidence" is to give up category 2) completely. Faith however is needed in order to reach category 2). It's not about the denying of "facts, reason, evidence", it's all about how we can reach the kind of truth not yet fully open to us.

The Bible is claimed to be about witnessing, same as most parts of human history. We choose to believe what the Bibles because we choose to trust the witnesses' description about God. You choose to believe what the history textbooks say because you choose to believe the witnessing of the historians. You don't directly examine historical facts, evidence and so forth, do you?! If not, do you consider you historical knowledge your blind faith?

[Heathen Hammer]

But the Bible was not written by eyewitnesses.

[Curious George]

Originally Posted by Hawkins

You choose to believe what the history textbooks say because you choose to believe the witnessing of the historians. You don't directly examine historical facts, evidence and so forth, do you?! If not, do you consider you historical knowledge your blind faith?

I cannot speak for everyone, but I would suggest one would be foolish to believe the historians without a healthy level of skepticism. Experience shows us all too well how often those "witnessing historians" distort the truth. I guess I would find it interesting that those reading the bible would think that there exists one book that is completely exempt from such tampering.