We seem to be missing each other here, making up something with no logic behind it then what logical reason would you have to believe in it?
Depends on what they come up with. You seem to use "logical" where more learned persons would use "reasonable." I do not think it would be reasonable to believe any logically consistent flight of fancy.
Do you KNOW if God, if he exists, created humans knowing the outcome, or is this simply what you assume?
Please, can you answer this question?
No, it isn't. It may be unreasonable, and it may be untrue, but it isn't internally or externally inconsistent.
Don't be so sure. You see, I actually understand what it means for something to be "logical."
It would help if somebody besides myself knew what the word "logical" actually meant.
to use a story from the old Testament.
Your God instructed Noah to build an ark.
This was before any rain had started; therefore god knew that the rains were coming in the amount that the ark would be needed.
HE apparently also knew that the rains would stop and that the ark would reach dry land allowing for the inhabitants of the ark to disembark.
Whether the story is true is a different subject.
On the point of the post; God had to have know the future; planned for it, executed it and followed through.
Nothing was left to chancen
Therefore his plans must be preplanned and the end results setup and know.
EK-
This was a prophecy and I never said God "lacked" the ability to foretell as evident by this point you made.
What I am challenging people on is the belief, or presupposition, that he predestined mankind to fail before creating them. You can't suppose that just because he can, that he automatically and always does...as if he lacks control in this regard. That is a pure assumption.
That belief is completely unbiblical. What's been established is the ability to foretell, no doubt about that.
Answer my question first:
Do you believe that God created the universe with inerrant foreknowledge of its future?
I am not going to participate in these vapidly ignorant "you first" games you seem intent on playing....
Your reluctance to honestly address the question tells me everything I need to know.
Thanks.
In order to have a reasonable discussion you need to answer questions so that others can know what you believe. Otherwise we just have to guess and that gets us no where as we have seen.
LOL -- if you don't know, by now, that I am under the belief God created humans apart from foreknowing the exact course they'd take, you haven't been at all paying attention.
If you're talking about a simple claim, i.e. "A is true," we can say that the statement is logically coherent -- that is, it is well-formed and contains no contradiction. "A is true" is a logical statement. This is true, even if A stands for "the sky is green".We seem to be missing each other here, making up something with no logic behind it then what logical reason would you have to believe in it?
It may not be, but it isn't necessarily illogical.It is not sound reasoning to believe something exists without a single shred of evidence.
It isn't a game. You cannot expect me to do that which you yourself are unwilling to do.I am not going to participate in these vapidly ignorant "you first" games you seem intent on playing....
I'm not reluctant in the slightest. Rather, it is you that repeatedly ignores significant portions of my posts. You should only expect the same kind of treatment of your questions and arguments that you give to that of others. (Does that sound kinda familiar?)Your reluctance to honestly address the question tells me everything I need to know.
Thanks.
LOL -- if you don't know, by now, that I am under the belief God created humans apart from foreknowing the exact course they'd take, you haven't been at all paying attention.
Rob M. said:I think those passage only prove the thing I've never disputed -- and that's God ability to use foreknowledge and to know everything.
But, of course, you pretended like that part of my post didn't exist.Cerpin Taxt said:It doesn't seem to make much sense to say that God only know the parts of the future he chooses to see when he would have had to create the future in the first place in order for it to exist at all for him to look at it. More realistically it appears to be an ad hoc hypothesis invented by you to desperately avoid confronting the pain absurdity of your beliefs.
If you're talking about a simple claim, i.e. "A is true," we can say that the statement is logically coherent -- that is, it is well-formed and contains no contradiction. "A is true" is a logical statement. This is true, even if A stands for "the sky is green".
If you're talking about a logical argument, for example:
1.) Iff A is true, then B is true.
2.) A is true.
C.) Therefore, B is true.
All three are logical statements, and the above is a logical argument. It is logically valid, and logically sound.
None of this has anything to do with actual facts in reality. Logic is about language, not reality.
It may not be, but it isn't necessarily illogical.
The problem here is that armchair philosophers throw around the term "logical" where it isn't really appropriate to lend some air of sophistication to their statements. It's true that it isn't "logical" to believe in leprechauns if we hold certain (usually common) assumptions as premises, but by itself, without expression of those premises, it is actually impossible to decide that a belief in leprechauns is illogical. It's only illogical if it is in conflict with the assumed premises, or some foundational axiom of logic.
Belief in a god, or that a god created a universe, can be logical. That doesn't mean that it is reasonable to believe, nor does that mean it is true.
EK-
This was a prophecy and I never said God "lacked" the ability to foretell as evident by this point you made.
What I am challenging people on is the belief, or presupposition, that he predestined mankind to fail before creating them. You can't suppose that just because he can, that he automatically and always does...as if he lacks control in this regard. That is a pure assumption.
That belief is completely unbiblical. What's been established is the ability to foretell, no doubt about that.
I don't think it is me that has missed the point. A logical statement is as I have described it -- well-formed and consistent. More generally, a belief with no evidence may be logical or illogical, but it is undecideable, absent the evidence. That's why it isn't true, strictly, to say, categorically, that a belief that God created the universe is illogical.You are totally missing the point, it's not about the statement being logically consistent.
That's because what was written didn't make sense to begin.This doesn't even make sense with what was written or responded to.
I agree with that.But really this talk is meaningless and not worth while, would rather deal with an actual subject than the meaning of a word lol. I am sure you would want to also.
It may not be, but it isn't necessarily illogical.
The problem here is that armchair philosophers throw around the term "logical" where it isn't really appropriate to lend some air of sophistication to their statements. It's true that it isn't "logical" to believe in leprechauns if we hold certain (usually common) assumptions as premises, but by itself, without expression of those premises, it is actually impossible to decide that a belief in leprechauns is illogical. It's only illogical if it is in conflict with the assumed premises, or some foundational axiom of logic.
Belief in a god, or that a god created a universe, can be logical. That doesn't mean that it is reasonable to believe, nor does that mean it is true.
Yes prayer works for me.
Also worked for this women:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/23356504/2013/09/06/police-investigating-incident-near-usf
In another incident, deputies say he broke into a woman's apartment at the nearby Eagles Point, but left without harming her because she began "praying and citing Biblical scripture," according to a release from police.
Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one more time, and please do read what I wrote in the previous post again, slowly this time.It is, if you follow that definition of the word...
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.Yes prayer works for me.
Also worked for this women:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/23356504/2013/09/06/police-investigating-incident-near-usf
In another incident, deputies say he broke into a woman's apartment at the nearby Eagles Point, but left without harming her because she began "praying and citing Biblical scripture," according to a release from police.
You wish/want prayer to work for you. That doesn't make it true no matter how much you wish to believe it.
The guy left...which was in no relation to her prayer. She simply wants to believe it so badly that she attributes being saved with her prayer. Had she not prayed and had the same result, what would she have believed then?
...the love I sought out there in some King of the Universe was all right there inside of me.
[...]
Everything is attitude...
[...]
...the Love of God finds its way into the world from inside you, that love is God's Will.
So, as an atheist who had a strange experience, I was forced to see God in a different way, as a representation of man's human potential, what any person can become, aware and awakened from the delusion created by duality, the realization that the self and the universe are the same thing.
Summed up: something good happens, it's God at work again. Something bad happens, it's that evil Satan guy doing it, or that God had some secret plan when he answered the prayers of the terrorists in crashing the jet into the world trade center.
That's your opinion, which is wrong. Right now you're lying to support your position. You have nothing to support what you say.
You will never be able to convince that women that prayer didn't help her.
Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one more time, and please do read what I wrote in the previous post again, slowly this time.
There are several types of logical criteria that characterize propositions. First, they are either well-formed or ill-formed, they are either coherent, or incoherent, they are either consistent or inconsistent. If we were to suppose that a proposition were the conclusion to a logical argument, then we characterize the proposition (and thus the argument,also) as logically valid and/or logically sound.
So, a proposition is "illogical" if it is ill-formed, or incoherent, or inconsistent, or logically invalid, or logically unsound.
This is how logicians use the word. You are using the version of the word they use in Florida panhandle trailer parks. Naturally, because there are more people speaking like Florida panhandle trailer park occupants than speaking like logicians, the dictionary records the more popular usage. Hey, even this year the dictionary added "twerk," "srsly," and "fauxhawk."
So, you go ahead and use the word however you like, and we'll know exactly what to think of you by what you choose.