Well, I still think you'd agree with me more than SatanLucy. I say hell is the absence of God, and that definition could still fit with annihilationism.
SatanLucy argues that the pain of hell is just not ultimate pain so the damned should be able to just suck it up.
You admit that your views are indeed heretical. Formal heresy results in automatic excommunication.
Would you like to vote?
What is your canon of scripture? I remember you said you accepted certain "apocrypha" ones.
It’s ultrarated and voters are randomly assigned.
What is your definition of "person"?
Time for ChatKnight to get it
That's exactly what I did
One of my writing books I used for school said that unicorns might have been real. I don't know why.
I never said anything
Exactly, people could tell it made no sense. Logic exists.
“No, that was you assuming ‘if you mention logic, logic exists.’ Also, burden of proof is on Con, so I cannot do work for him.”
Not necessarily. If burden of proof is on him, why go into so much details? You could have won if you did nothing, giving him no chance to use your statements to prove logic does indeed exist.
“If circular logic is good, then saying logic doesnt exist because logic doesnt exist is as good as saying logic exists because logic exists, a contradiction.”
How can contradictions even be a thing if there is no logic? Contradictions defy logic, but they can’t defy logic if it doesn’t exist.
“Using ‘real logic’ to prove ‘real logic’ is circular too.”
It can’t be circular logic if there is no logic.
I’m saying that you did the work for con.
Also, saying all logic is flawed means all logic is good.
Circular logic is flawed because there is real logic. If real logic didn’t exist, circular logic couldn’t be flawed.
"You are using circular logic to prove logic, while at the same time saying circular logic is flawed."
You are using circular logic to prove logic doesn't exist.
The fact is, you know and recognize circular logic is bad logic. How can it be bad logic?
"this is only true if you already assume logic exists, which is circular reasoning."
Circular reasoning is a flawed form of logic. Therefore, it makes sense to say there are good forms of logic and logic does indeed exist.
"So again, if we assume that contradictions are impossible, it defeats logic itself."
Contradiction means something can be something that's not. Example: false = true, impossible = possible, illogical = logical.
If a contradiction is possible, it is no longer a contradiction.
Also, how can it defeat logic if logic doesn't exist?
"If logic doesnt exist, I dont need to do anything because logic doesnt exist."
But you did need to do something, therefore logic exists.
Your whole argument is that the world would make more logic sense if logic didn't exist, which is a contradiction.
You claim that removing logic creates better logic, which contradicts itself.
If logic didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to hypothesize what the world would be like if logic did exist.
That's a big if
That doesn't matter.
If logic doesn't exist, there can be no if-then statements.
If logic didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to give hypothetical if-then statements about what life would be like if logic did exist.
The reason why none of these if-then statements make sense is because the if says "logic didn't exist." It proves logic does exist because it contradicts itself.
Con doesn't have to catch it. You just had to use things outside the Bible.
Again, contradictions can only exist with logic. If there is not logic, we can't even have contradictions.
Contradiction means that something false is true or something true is false.
Without logic, things cannot be true or false.
You're saying logic leads to logical contradictions.
How do you know it's a contradiction?
If logic doesn't exist, then nothing is a contradiction since everything makes sense because nothing makes sense.
The classic attempt of trying to equate God with unicorns. It just doesn't work.
Not always self-defense. Sometimes defending others.
Please
Vote
vote people
You complain about people not calling Jesus Yeshua but then say He was like this.
Didn’t Jesus say those differences don’t matter anymore in that exact context?
Doesn’t the Bible say there is neither Jew nor Greek?
When Jesus said “pay to Caesar,” He meant only in political matters. This is why He says, “render to God things that are God’s.” It’s a lesson about the relation between Church and state.
The Bible didn’t condemn voluntary “slavery” but condemned involuntary slavery (kidnapping; you can find many verses condemning this).
The New Testament condemns homosexuality both explicitly and implicitly in many places. (So much for the Old-Testament-is-void argument)
At least you understand why we need the Church to make decisions for us.
Just look at Christ’s interactions with women. He broke the society norms of the day. If He wanted, He would have made more, but He didn’t, for a reason.
