Right, from the top:
There's no flow from that at all. I see no reason that the "greatest, most perfect, brilliantest, amazingist" means "architect of all things".
Also, it depends on what you call "things". Obviously, anything which is a part of God cannot be created by him as it's a prerequsite for him (if God logical?)
.... I meant God created all things as part of the premise, not following on from the 'perfect' sentence (although it still may follow on logically).
So if God cannot create himself, who created him?
No. Logic is not an "exitant thing" and therefore is not "created".
I don't understand this. Did you mean 'existant'? Logic does exist, maybe not in physical form, but metaphysically.
It's impossible to discuss rationally an irrational concept. There's no way to answer the question.
It it logical that there's unlogic? No.
Fair enough, but I meant can we
use the unlogic instead of the logic when discussing the unlogic. I think i meant that anyway.
I don't see how any of your premises support any of your conclusions. Even granting each premise, the next step did not seem to flow logically at all.
.....My conclusion was not based on the steps beforehand, it was just what I thought. Each of the steps was not supposed to follow on logically from the next, it was just a series of questions whereby if you answered 'yes' then the next question would be valid.
But good attitude anyway JerryL, keep on arguin'.
That's fine by me; no one says you
have to believe in God. Just out of interest, it almost seems like you get very frustrated with theists because we don'tsee things your way...........
Yes, i always used to get that way, now im frustrated when i cant convey my arguments properly. I understand now about how you have very little chance of convincing a theist to be an atheist using conventional logical arguments, so i am weaning myself off attempting to do that.
I got the very same impression. Imagine that!
Many of your questions seem to have no way of being answered on this plane of existence. Many assume they know, and most would be wrong in their assumptions.
'We only know that we dont know.' But do we even know that, im not sure. And many theists get that impression about me when i pick out the logical inconsistencies in their arguments.
Halcyon, yes, you make a lot of sense. I'm tryin to think of extensions to what you say though, because if there are limits to what we can think
about, are we truly fully conscious?
Really? It seemed to me that he was more frustrated with non-theists who kept on trying to argue against theism by constraining god via logic whilst missing the point that god could easily have created logic and therefore constraining him in such a way is not justifiable.
No, because what i meant was that if God
created logic, then how did he think of it without using logic? (Theists answer: He is omnipotent and omniscient; go figure)
Many arguments about God rely on the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience etc., i think i started a thread to that effect once but it didnt go anywhere.
Logic is a human construct. It is a tool to help us understand truths.
....... so where do the laws of physics and maths come from? Did we invent them? Clever that they all fit together like that isn't it.
This makes no sense. A=A is a human sentence and an abstraction. If it were not a truism, then our system of logic is flawed, but it says nothing of the truths established by God.</FONT>
Great, so what are the truths established by God? (Remember- you have just disparaged logic as a
human invention, and so cannot use it when explaining God's Truths.)
And from that site quoted by Cordoba:
The claim of the theory of evolution, the unique method of denying the existence of Allah, is no different than this. According to the theory, inorganic molecules formed amino acids by chance, amino acids formed proteins by chance, and finally proteins formed living creatures again by chance. However, the probability of a living creature being formed by coincidence is less than the probability of the Eiffel Tower being formed in the same manner, because even the simplest human cell is more sophisticated than any man-made structure in the world.
MY GOSH, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS! HOW COULD I.... BE SO BLIND....????
How is it possible to think that the balance in the world came about by coincidence when the extraordinary harmony of nature is observable even with the naked eye? It is the most unreasonable claim to say that the universe, each point of which suggests the existence of its Creator, has come into being on its own.
No, it is the most unreasonable to say a perfect,
conscious, benevolent entity came into being on its own,
and created us for our sake.
Question: should we thank someone for creating us? Is that logical? For we would have no means by which not to thank them if they hadn't.