firedragon
Veteran Member
I kind of agree with your Elephant example, but scriptures are beasts on their own.
I understand what you say.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I kind of agree with your Elephant example, but scriptures are beasts on their own.
But they are not God nor superior and as such not relevant for discussion of a superior being.But aren't the lizard men known for their arrogance and air of superiority?
"Gods" is logical impossibility, if there are multiple Gods, which one is superior?No, the Christian God is considered benevolent, but this isn't a common trait among Gods.
Lack of understanding of scriptures leads to such rushed conclusions.The God of Abraham reveled in war, conquest and and killing.
Yes, in "Abrahamic" interpretations.In some Abrahamic interpretations, non-believers should not be allowed to live.
I kind of agree with your Elephant example, but scriptures are beasts on their own.
Doesnt apply in this case mate.
Logic has nothing to do with practical possibilities. It has to do with mathematics. It's a subset of algebra.
Yes, these are cultural differences, but we're talking about ontology -- absolute, objective Truth.But you know what? In the field of sociology of religion, this word "truth" is always taken subjectively. For example, the Americans Santa Claus is white, but an Indian Santa Claus could be brown or light brown. The Southeast asian Buddha is south East Asian, but the Japanese buddha is Japanese. Even their eyes are different.
Yeah, I understand it differently and can act differently, thus it is case of cognitive relativity.
Yes, these are cultural differences, but we're talking about ontology -- absolute, objective Truth.
Boolean algebra - WikipediaWikipedia: Logic - Wikipedia
Logic is the study of correct reasoning or good arguments. It is often defined in a more narrow sense as the science of deductively valid inferences or of logical truths.There may be mathematical logic, but I do not believe the use of the term 'logic' is restricted to mathematics.
haha, I don't know what to say, I never saw a Japanese Buddha lol, but I have arguments for santa claus although I would refrain from sharing it here.But you know what? In the field of sociology of religion, this word "truth" is always taken subjectively. For example, the Americans Santa Claus is white, but an Indian Santa Claus could be brown or light brown. The Southeast asian Buddha is south East Asian, but the Japanese buddha is Japanese. Even their eyes are different.
Even "reasonable" is subjective.They go deeper. They use words like "reasonable". That means, the faith A and faith B are both true, but A is more reasonable to me. Because truth is subjective in their paradigm.
haha, I don't know what to say, I never saw a Japanese Buddha lol, but I have arguments for santa claus although I would refrain from sharing it here.
Even "reasonable" is subjective.
What is reasonable to me doesn't have to be reasonable to you because when it comes to defending ones faith reason can become second to faith.
Absolutely. Thats just how Phd's in the field of Sociology of Religion are trained to think.
But that's not relevant to your earlier point. This is absolutely one field, irrelevant to your discussion.
For clarification, it is your position that faith takes precedence or priority over reason. In other words, when faith and reason conflict, it is faith that controls and is to be relied upon. Is this a correct assessment of your position?
Yes, these are cultural differences, but we're talking about ontology -- absolute, objective Truth.
Have you found it yet?
Eg?Thank you. Yes, there is mathematical logic. I should have used better phrasing. And what of other types of logic?
Yep -- but I ain't telling...Have you found it yet?
Yeah, absolute objective Truth is not possible in the following sense. We human are not absolute nor objective as having reality independent of our minds. The only possible being would could have that is God.