Logic, Therefore God...

[Machinist]

I am still clinging to the truth that a thing is identical to itself. Despite it being a trivial truth, it is not nonsense.

[seer]

Not at all. One can make sound deductive arguments premised upon the verifiable facts of the natural laws and constants of the universe. This cannot be done with the unverified premise of god’s existence.

Good grief man, then present your deductive syllogism! Or stop your caterwauling...

[seer]

Usable? Usable by who?
If and when the universe stops (ie, no energy) it will be a whole lot of matter and might start to attract back to it's center.
And what about other universes? I think God is bigger than one universe. There might be billions of them.

What other universes?

Still gripped by such megalomanias as 'we are so valuable!'??

Well that is the Christian belief. But the point was that vastness tells us nothing about value...

I know....... you think your god is better than everyone else's gods..... you think only you are right.

Well of course I do, or I would not be a Christian. And it beats a clueless, useless deity...

And I don't have a deity. I am a tiny part of a deity, together with you and all else.

You still have not told us what the attributes of this deity are. You said it was more than just nature - what is this more?

[Tassman]

Good grief man, then present your deductive syllogism!

Logic is just a set of rules and techniques for distinguishing good reasoning from bad. And I’m not making a formal logic argument, because formal logic has no means to establish a verifiably true premise.

Hence, it is your task to defend your unsubstantiated logical premise (in # 350) that we cannot have a have a universe apart from God. This is your bald assertion, NOT a verifiable premise. And without a demonstrably true premise you cannot present a sound logical deductive argument.

Or stop your caterwauling

“Caterwauling”?

[eider]

What other universes?

I wrote: There might be billions of them.

Well that is the Christian belief.

Which is not based upon logic, but Faith, I think.

Well of course I do, or I would not be a Christian. And it beats a clueless, useless deity...

I know....... your God is better than.........

You still have not told us what the attributes of this deity are. You said it was more than just nature - what is this more?

Attributes? Everything you can perceive to exist.

Now......... what are the attributes of your God, please. Try and be logical about this.

[seer]

Logic is just a set of rules and techniques for distinguishing good reasoning from bad. And I’m not making a formal logic argument, because formal logic has no means to establish a verifiably true premise.

Hence, it is your task to defend your unsubstantiated logical premise (in # 350) that we cannot have a have a universe apart from God. This is your bald assertion, NOT a verifiable premise. And without a demonstrably true premise you cannot present a sound logical deductive argument.

No Tass, now you are avoiding again - you said you could make a deductive argument. So stop hiding - present you syllogism. Or do you realize that you can't and that your position is merely bluster?

[seer]

I wrote: There might be billions of them.

Without any empirical evidence... Got it...

Which is not based upon logic, but Faith, I think.

As is yours...Your "god" that you can't even describe except to say that it is unaware and not mindful. We could describe a rock that way.

I know....... your God is better than.........

Of course, it goes without saying - that a God that is involved with His creation is better than an absent deity. A father who is involved with his children is better than a father who doesn't care. Don't you agree?

Attributes? Everything you can perceive to exist.

But this is only nature - but you said that god was not ONLY nature - stop hiding and tell us what this more is.

Now......... what are the attributes of your God, please. Try and be logical about this.

Stop being deceptive - I listed some of those attributes - and you presented no violation of logic in those attributes. Try to fail harder...

[Tassman]

No Tass, now you are avoiding again - you said you could make a deductive argument. So stop hiding - present you syllogism. Or do you realize that you can't and that your position is merely bluster?

The issue, as I’ve made clear, is not a ‘deductive argument’ per se. It is that without a demonstrably true premise you cannot present a sound logical deductive argument. And your unsubstantiated logical premise (#350) that “we cannot have a have a universe apart from God” is merely a bald assertion, NOT a verifiable, demonstrably true premise. This as opposed to a sound deductive argument premised upon say, the verifiable laws of physics.

[Tassman]

Without any empirical evidence... Got it...

Not quite:

“Research released in 2016 revised the number of galaxies in the observable universe from a previous estimate of 200 billion (2×1011) to a suggested two trillion (2×1012) or more and, overall, as many as an estimated 1×1024 stars (more stars than all the grains of sand on planet Earth). Astronomers estimate there are about 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

And given that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-like planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars in our galaxy alone, let alone the billions of other galaxies. It is highly likely that some of these planets have resulted in intelligent life”.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...iously-thought

[eider]

Without any empirical evidence... Got it...

As is yours...Your "god" that you can't even describe except to say that it is unaware and not mindful. We could describe a rock that way.

Yes. A rock is a part of all, and all = all
Please read your OP

course, it goes without saying - that a God that is involved with His creation is better than an absent deity. A father who is involved with his children is better than a father who doesn't care. Don't you agree?

So what you believe is better than what I believe. So much for your logic.

this is only nature - but you said that god was not ONLY nature - stop hiding and tell us what this more is.

Because everything, the known, the unknown, material, immaterial, matter, antimatter.
But here..... Nature rules, and that includes you.
Logic

Stop being deceptive - I listed some of those attributes - and you presented no violation of logic in those attributes. Try to fail harder...

Stop hiding. Please list the attributes of your God. Avoiding the question is deceptive.

[seer]

Not quite:

“Research released in 2016 revised the number of galaxies in the observable universe from a previous estimate of 200 billion (2×1011) to a suggested two trillion (2×1012) or more and, overall, as many as an estimated 1×1024 stars (more stars than all the grains of sand on planet Earth). Astronomers estimate there are about 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

And given that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-like planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars in our galaxy alone, let alone the billions of other galaxies. It is highly likely that some of these planets have resulted in intelligent life”.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...iously-thought

What does that have to do with other universes?

[seer]

Because everything, the known, the unknown, material, immaterial, matter, antimatter.
But here..... Nature rules, and that includes you.
Logic

It is not logical to call nature god, and then you said that god is not only nature - and you refuse to tell us what that means - what is this something more? You have dodged this question a number of times. This leads me to believe that you are being deceptive or you have no idea what you are talking about.

Stop hiding. Please list the attributes of your God. Avoiding the question is deceptive.

Either you have mental problem or you are lying. I listed attributes in post #286 and you responded - so don't pretend that I didn't list them.

[seer]

The issue, as I’ve made clear, is not a ‘deductive argument’ per se. It is that without a demonstrably true premise you cannot present a sound logical deductive argument. And your unsubstantiated logical premise (#350) that “we cannot have a have a universe apart from God” is merely a bald assertion, NOT a verifiable, demonstrably true premise. This as opposed to a sound deductive argument premised upon say, the verifiable laws of physics.

Don't turn it around Tass - you said you could make a deductive argument for your position - so do it! I did not claim that I could make a deductive argument.

I said:And you can not make a deductive argument that nature alone created this universe

You said: One can verify the existence of the natural world (or components thereof) and thereby establish a true premise from which to make a sound deductive argument.

[eider]

My God is creative, rational, moral, aware, knowledgeable, supremely powerful, transcendent and interactive with the universe He created.

Oh dear. Everybody is a liar. You do so chuck that about. I won't be picking up that dreadful characteristic of yours.

That is just such hogwash.
Take one 'attribute'. Show me where God is so interested in morality. I say that, for example, the laws of Moses were about success through strength, health, numbers, cohesion etc.

Your whole OP is illogical, but let's just pick that one attribute.

[seer]

Oh dear. Everybody is a liar. You do so chuck that about. I won't be picking up that dreadful characteristic of yours.

That is just such hogwash.
Take one 'attribute'. Show me where God is so interested in morality. I say that, for example, the laws of Moses were about success through strength, health, numbers, cohesion etc.

Your whole OP is illogical, but let's just pick that one attribute.

No, you have to show how a moral God is illogical. Which law of logic does that violate? Be specific please. And when are you going to tell us about your god? If it is more than nature what is that more?