SatanLucy

Damn, my screenshots are such low resolution for some reason when I post here.

They are waiting for you to download them.

There is nothing circular about this. Logic is foundational, that is, all thought begins with logic. It cannot be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either requires the usage of it, thereby presuming its validity at the outset. That's why abandonment of logic is immediately dismissed as incoherent to a level where you are indistinguishable from someone who belongs in a mental asylum

Same can be said about non-logic. It cannot be disproved or even questioned. Also, saying that you need logic to prove logic just means you cant even prove logic.

There is no such thing as a concept that logic doesn't apply to. Arguing that logic doesn't apply to God is every bit as incoherent as me saying I can prove to you that you don't exist.

Logic doesnt apply to "Not A = A".

A tautology is definitionally, a meaningless statement. All it means it's that a statement is consistent with itself, that cannot be used to prove anything, that's why in any debate between educated participants the term is used as a pajorative. Telling someone their statement is a tautology is telling them that they're saying nothing at all

Tautology also means statement logically derived from other statement. In other words, when one statement is true, other must be as well.

Do you believe it is acceptable for your beliefs to violate the laws of logic? Yes or No?

Yes, because then they cannot even be questioned. A much better debating position.

No but you are using logic to come to that conclusion, just as you are using logic to reach every conclusion you have ever reached in your entire life. That's why what you're doing is definitionally absurd - by asserting that anything can exist outside the boundaries of logic you are abandoning logic as the rule of thought, so in order to continue defending your assertion you have to put yourself in the position of using logic to argue against logic, which is exactly what you are and have been doing.

Logic is "A = A". I am simply saying God is capable of "Not A = A". That isnt logic. That is non-logic, something a divine being is capable of. So the claim that I am using logic to describe non-logic is false.

Omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnipotence:

1. Only omniscience is truth, as partial truth without omniscience is never whole truth, thus is never truth. Thus, only God is truth.

2. Only omnipresence can be present everywhere if present anywhere, and can include all reality in itself. Thus, only God can contain whole reality.

3. Only omnipotence can be above all and be source of everything else, as only omnipotence(ability to create anything) can create everything, and nothing except omnipotence can create everything. Thus, only God can be the source of everything.

4. Only omnibenevolence can be a correct standard for what is good, as only completely good can be used as a meassure for how good something is. Thus, without God's omnibenevolence, there is no way to tell what is good or what is completely good.

Definition is very important. In the same way some versions of ontological argument are based entirely on proof by definition.

Example:

God is defined as greatest possible being.

Greatest possible being would logically be being which exists everywhere by definition.

So to say that God doesnt exist somewhere would contradict with established definition of God.

And if such God exists somewhere, such God exists everywhere.

Such God exists in mind, so such God exists somewhere.

Thus, such God exists everywhere.

I am not a big fan of ontological argument, but it is one example where definition of something is used as proof for it. Similar is done in math, where definitions are also proof.

So to put it simply, being above logic simply means "A = A" doesnt need to apply as a rule.

So God can be "A = A", but he can also be "Not A = A" and "A =/= A".

So being above logic simply means God can do what is logically impossible, which is "Not A = A". In other words, God can move from state of non-existence into state of existence.

When "A = A" doesnt apply, what applies is "Not A = A". In other words, what applies is law of non-logic, where "0 = 1".

"God doesnt exist = God exists" cannot be logically true, but because God is above logic, it can be true for God, and God can create himself/herself out of nothing.

This isnt difficult to understand. If I defined God as "all powerful being which can create itself out of nothing, and which can exist even when it doesnt", such definition of God would by tautology prove God at the same time.

Atheists place logic above God, but that contradicts the basic definition of God. If logic is more powerful than God, then God isnt most powerful, but logic is. So in other words, you cannot agree to definition of God and then contradict the definition which you agree to.

Or if you need a more simple one:

Logic = Logic

Above logic = Above logic.

"Above logic = logic" cannot ever be logically true, so its opposite is the only one which can be logically true:

Above logic =/= logic.

If you are using it, then God cannot be above it.

False claim. I can use logic while God can be above logic. My use of logic has nothing to do with God's own abilities.

If you are not using it, then you are literally not even thinking coherently, at which point nothing you say has any meaning.

Circular reasoning.

Definitions require the application of logic in order to make sense. You cannot define something as being above logic any more than I can define a 4 sided triangle into existence.

Circular reasoning. You are saying logic must apply to God in order for logic to apply to God. You are saying definition requires logic in order for logic to apply to definition. But sadly, such circle only works against you. If you need logic to disprove God, and logic does not apply to God, then you cannot disprove God or even question his existence. As for definition, the definition itself isnt above logic. God is.

And how did you reach that conclusion? What did you use to get there?

The basic law of logic is A = A.

Which then creates a true equation:

God is above logic = Logical laws cannot stop God from creating himself out of nothing.

This is true by tautology, which is different from circular reasoning you use.

One cannot agree with one part while disagreeing with other.

AI girlfriends keep looking better and better.

Personally, Talkie and Character AI are great apps for those seeking AI girlfriends.

warranty

I never use the warranty unless the thing is broken from start. I am simply not someone who keeps fixing things until they can no longer be fixed. I am someone who keeps things in good condition so they last longer, but once they break, I just buy new. Warranty is something which always increases prices of product, so anyone who believes in its usefulness is about as smart as a pencil. My advice is simple: buy from a good brand, and laptop should last for at least a few years. I dont need to tell you that laptops have a very short life span, especially if you carry them around or play games on them which cause heat which causes damage to some parts.

If you want for laptop to last longer, go to power plan and set maximum processor rate to 99%. This greatly prevents overheating, especially if playing games or running demanding programs.

I know you guys feel like you have to come in here and tell every single person on every single post that there's no god

The reason why they have to do that is because atheism has no values. Lack of belief in God is not a value and can exist in an ordinary rock as well as in animals such as chicken. So rock can be atheist and chicken can be atheist. So truly, atheism is just a lack of certain value. Atheists have to go around saying that they lack this value, because atheism itself has no values it can show. Atheism has no moral system, has no belief system, has no starting premise. Atheist can never come and say "atheism stands for this", because atheism by their own definition doesnt stand for anything except anti-value.

To define something as being "above logic" by definition makes your claim irrational. At that point there is no longer a purpose in continuing a conversation with you because there are no rules. You can make things up that feel good to you, so I can just do the same. I always liked unicorns, so I guess those are real too. So are dragons, bigfoot, martians... Whatever we want, it's all real because logic doesn't matter so there's no mechanism left to refute them.

So you think logic is above God. But that contradicts with definition of God. You may think it makes claim irrational, but the fact remains that once we place God above logic, no logic can be used to even question God's existence. You may think being above logic is irrational, but I dont see any proof that God cannot be above logic, when God is above logic by definition. So if you accept the definition of God as is, it leads to conclusion that God must exist, because God who is above logic cannot be stopped by anything.

Because it's a logical contradiction

No, there is no 3rd option there.

because God is just a plug in for the point at which we cannot know anything further

I think you misunderstood. The only two theories of existence which are possible both support idea of unconditional first existence. If existence is unconditional, then anything can exist, including God.

Venus is not a creation god

Not to Romans. But I cant imagine there being a God not involved in creation.

when I was posting on debate art, you were not a pagan or a polytheist

I was Christian for six months, but I am okay now.

So a non-existent God created existence. Wow, that's an impressive trick.

First existence can only be created from non-existence or not be created at all. I dont see why this is so difficult to understand. God is all powerful, he can create himself out of nothing, and he can exist eternally. So it doesnt matter which theory of first existence you believe in, creation from non-existence, or eternal existence, both support God. God, defined as supreme being above logic, cannot be in any way stopped from existing. Problem of atheists is that they assume logic is above God, which contradicts definition of God.

Using she to refer to the creator doesn't impress me.

Venus is she, and while my religion doesnt exactly have a way of determining if creator is he or she or it, I believe in infinite number of Gods, and some likely prefer to be called she. Especially Venus, Goddess who gave me signs which to me prove she is real and that she is actually similar to what Christians would describe as Satan or devil in the Bible. Even the morning star is common name for Venus and Satan. So I feel the need to stop calling God he because it is extremely unlikely that all Gods are males, and even more unlikely that the ones I am praying to are.

Taxes only make sense if you think government is good. If you think government is bad, then paying taxes is same as funding bad guys.

I don't want anything from govt other than infrastructure

Sorry, you dont get to choose. The government chooses what you need and gives it to you, and chooses what you dont need and takes it from you.

typical if/then logic is shit

As I said, no logical response from you, not even the basic level of understanding of what was said. When you make up your mind and choose to defend either conditional either unconditional will, then tell me. And no, 3rd option doesnt exist.

bullshit

As I said, high level logic is way above people here. They cant even respond to it.

Everything that exists was created by God

I agree with this. God is the Creator of existence, and if it wasnt for God, it would be impossible for anything to exist.

I agree that God can be happier with some of her creations than she is with others, but ultimately, all that exists only exists because God wanted it.

Who is "we," who "know free will cannot exist?"

I have explained this many times. The definition of free will contradicts its own existence, because existence can be either random(unconditional) either pattern(conditional), and neither of the two is free will. Of course, I dont expect people here to understand high level logic. This is something for high level only.

We know that free will cannot exist logically, and we also know God logically must exist.

So that means God creates and controls everything, including atheists.

In this sense, atheists are exactly the way God wants them to be.

Every person on Earth is the perfect creation of God.

Divine wisdom is such that the ones who dont understand it see the world differently from those who do.

Once you realize that everything what happens is 100% will of the God, you realize that hating anyone or anything means hating the will of the God.

This is logically true.

X = will of God

Hating X = hating will of God

In this sense, there are those who hate the will of God and there are those who dont.

Those who fully accept the will of God must likewise believe in unconditional acceptance of everything what happens, as everything what happens is pure will of God.

For this reason, I cannot hate anyone or anything, because everything is God's will. There is no good and evil. There is only the will of the supreme ruler who controls everything and everyone.

I am both spiritual and religious.

It bothers you?

Ok, so here is what happens.

I click on edit. I click on submit change. It says edit failed. Then I reload the page and apparently message is edited.

Edit: See?

Lets test

Edit: works for me