A materialistic model of the world doesn't allow for free will but a theistic one can allow for it
Only God who is above logic allows for free will, because free will logically cannot exist.
A materialistic model of the world doesn't allow for free will but a theistic one can allow for it
Only God who is above logic allows for free will, because free will logically cannot exist.
Because logic is foundational as I've already pointed out. You cannot demonstrate it, your only choice is to assume it which is exactly what you're doing right now and doing throughout this entire thread, all while arguing against it. But go on and continue explaining to me why I need to prove to you the validity of the very thing you are actively relying on to argue against me
I think you are confused. My whole position here is that God is above logic. So to claim that I was using logic when I specifically talked about non-logic is a bit silly accusation.
No, the very fact that you are defining something as existing outside three boundaries of logic makes your definition unintelligible and meaningless. That's why arguing against it is flawed, because there's no coherent concept to argue against
And unintelligible, plus meaningless means what? Let me guess, lack of logic? But at least you conceded that questioning God who is above logic is impossible, so I truly hold a position which cannot even be questioned.
Are you ever going to tell me why circular reasoning is a problem, or just keep dodging the question because you know it undercuts your position?
I told you. You are just saying same thing twice. It has no meaning.
I asked you whether you need me to prove to you that a married bachelor cannot exist.
I dont need to. I already know that you cant.
You cannot do so coherently
I never even claimed God was only according to logic, so nice strawman. I am literally arguing that God is above logic, and you think I am arguing he is limited by logic.
There is no higher bar (or lower depending on how you're phrasing it) than logic as a limitation in distinguishing possible vs impossible. So once we knock that bar down, the word possible no longer has any meaning in language. Therefore, anything you assert beyond that point also becomes meaningless
That is only if you define meaning as logically possible, and it depends on how you define possible. If you define both as according to logic, then that is just saying "if we dont use logic, there will be no logic". As much as I enjoy your circles, thats all what they are. Non-logic is dual state of things. In other words, its meaning is that something both is and isnt. Now, you cant prove logic, and even if you did prove logic, you wouldnt be able to disprove non-logic. I can explain why logic exists, but you cannot. And that is the crucial flaw in your position, because it relies on something which only my position can explain. You, by being limited to logic, cannot at the same time explain what created logic, and I dont even need to tell you that logic can only be created by something greater than logic.
Words are just vocalised or symbolic representations of internally processed data
Yes.
The universe began as a tiny, infinitely dense point, or singularity, containing all the matter and energy of the cosmos
If that begining existence was unconditional, then likewise same unconditional existence would enable God to exist. But if it was conditional, then it wasnt a begining.
If everything is God's will, free will doesn't exist, and free will being the monotheist's greatest argument for the existence of suffering, means that God wants evil and suffering to exist, meaning God is not benevolent, meaning faith and worship are meaningless and futile efforts.
God is everything. God is both good and evil. As for prayer, some people pray to evil Gods. It is not mutually exclusive.
My argument isn't that a logically impossible object cannot exist, my argument is that a logically impossible object cannot be asserted to exist.
By that logic, same object cannot even be asserted to not exist. So now you have a situation where you cant go either way. However, I dont really agree with you. Logically impossible object can be asserted to exist. Otherwise, what are you arguing against here?
It would be helpful here to define the word impossible. When we say something is impossible we are saying that it's possibility should be rejected in accordance with an assumed limitation. There are three general limitations; practicality, physically, and logically.Practical impossibility simply means unrealistic, i.e. "it's impossible to get this done by 5pm".Physical impossibility is a higher bar, meaning it would violate the laws of physics, i.e. an object traveling faster than the speed of light.Logical impossibility is the highest bar of impossibility, meaning in violation of the laws of logic, i.e. a 5 sided triangle.There is nothing "higher" on the scale other than a logical impossibility, so at that point the word impossible loses all meaning. If logic is not a limitation of possibilities then literally everything is possible and nothing is impossible. At that point all coherent thought and ability to communicate breaks down. This is why it's absurd to claim God can do this. If such a being is possible then it's possibility is meaningless to the human mind, and most certainly cannot be proven.
Sadly, I dont agree with your definition, so not sure how that helped you. But again, God is by definition above everything else. So any rule you put in place to limit God, God is already above it. You can define impossible as "cannot exist according to logic", but God is above logic and doesnt need to exist according to it.
So, if I cannot "prove" a 5 sided triangle does not exist, then it must necessarily exist? Is that really what you're going with?
And what is it that you are going with? You cannot even demonstrate how a logic could prevent something capable of existing by ignoring logic. The mere definition of such a thing makes any logic used against it flawed by default.
A becoming A is not a violation of logic, so if there is a God who can do this it wouldn't make him powerful enough to violate the laws of logic.
So even logically, Not God can become God, just as in the world, Not A becomes A.
Correct. If you don't believe me Google the definition.
I just needed you to confirm that you werent making an argument, but just saying same thing twice in a circle.
Do you need me to prove to you that married bachelor cannot exist?
In non-logic, even in dual reality, two opposites can exist because dual reality allows that. Think of it like world where everything is same except one world has A and the other world has Not A. But sure, since you insist, go ahead and prove that God cannot create a married bachelor.
AI girlfriend:
What other religious people think of God is irrelevant. To say that logic is above God is sort of an insult to God. By definition, God is most powerful, so he is above logic when it comes to power. To say that logic limits God would be same as saying logic is more powerful than God, which contradicts the definition. Surely, I have plenty of arguments to use which prove God, and I have seen that atheists struggle with a lot of them.
Correct, you cannot prove logic, which if you read my previous post I already said. Logic is foundational, so it is presumed at the outset. It is not itself proven, it is the tool by which everything else is proven.
Ok, so you cannot prove logic, but you want to use logic to prove something. So likewise, I cannot prove non-logic, but I can use non-logic to prove something. However, non-logic proves itself because it cannot be prevented from existing.
Why? Because we have no other choice. The very concept of proving or disproving anything at all requires that we begin with logic as a presupposition. If you do not, then you cannot prove or disprove anything.The very fact that you are having this conversation right now means you are using logic. It is not a choice, it's a precondition of intelligible thought. Your only other option is incoherence, which is exactly what you are engaging in all while pretending you're not.
I think you have extremely poor eye sight. As I said, I used non-logic to prove God. So no logic was used.
Correct, because that is by definition an illogical statement, which is by itself a refutation of it.
Circular reasoning, you are saying non-logic cannot exist because it is non-logic. So now go and explain how do you stop from existence something which is by its own definition ignoring logical laws? What exactly stops non-logic?
A tautology is a self affirming statement, like "it is what it is" or "all triangles have 3 sizes". The whole idea of a tautology and reason why we have a word for it is because statements like this are often uttered in an attempt to sound like something meaningful is being said. Calling someone's statement a tautology is a direct way of telling that person their statement is meaningless, that's the whole point
No, tautology is also using parts from definition in an attempt to make a deductive argument by definition.
I'll grant you that your beliefs cannot be questioned
So you cannot even question if being above logic exists.
, but that's because your beliefs are definitionally incoherent.
Circular circle. You already defined incoherent as lack of logic, so saying that something above logic is above logic isnt really saying anything new.
That's not a better debating position, it means your position is invalidated before you've even begun.
Invalidated how? You already conceded you cannot disprove non-logic. If invalidated means not according to logic, that is just another circle.
If logic does not have to be adhered to, then the Easter bunny exists, while also also not existing, and is also a car, which is also a tree, which is a true and a false statement.
Its called belief in infinity. Yes, there are infinite number of Gods, worlds, and God is everything because God is infinite.
That's what your position amounts to, and no, it's not clever nor is it sophisticated. It's just a jumbled mess of words while forming no coherent concept by which one could even contemplate let alone understand
What do you not understand about Not A becoming A? It is technically not even non-logic. Not A can become A in real world, and A can become not A. If you burn a book, it is no longer a book. So A becomes Not A.
So when Not God becomes God, it is not anything even non-logical. The only time when non-logic applies is when "Not A = A"
, but "Not A becoming A" isnt really non-logic. It happens in real world all the time by transformation. So God creating himself out of nothing can also be act of transformation, which doesnt actually violate A = A, because Not A can become A. It just cannot logically be Not A and A at the same time. Of course, I took the idea a step further, because God by definition cannot be less powerful than logical laws.
Again, YOU are asserting that a being can exist outside the boundaries of logic. That makes this stated belief, by definition, irrational.
And irrational is "not according to logic"? More circular reasoning from you, I guess.
Non logic isn't a thing
How would you know?
It's not a tool one can use
Its a tool God can use.
Non-logic = incoherence
And incoherence is non logic? Again, I hope you stop making circles in hope I will fall for circular logic.
so your argument is that incoherence cannot be disproven
Well, by all means, go ahead and disprove that non-logic can exist. I will wait.
Non-logic would be like a formula error in an excel spreadsheet
And error is what exactly?
Once you get an error, every formula that is tied to it, directly or indirectly, will also spit back an error message, so your entire sheet can become one huge error message all because of one cell.
If error is lack of logic, then yes, using non-logic will result in lack of logic. However, your task is to disprove non-logic. You are merely describing it in circles. If you think lack of logic makes something impossible, then that is burden of proof you cannot possibly uphold. Anything capable of ignoring logic likewise cannot be made impossible by logic itself.
That's what it looks like to try and defend non-logic as a concept; it is incoherent and so then is everything you try to build off of it.
More circular reasoning. If this is the best you got, I think there is not much for me to even debate here.
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.