The greatest error on bb

[webdog]

You use the laughing symbol more than anybody on BB, I bet.

Iconoclast would tell you that you would lose that bet.

Perhaps you don't realize it- but it is insulting the way you use it. It is quite evident that you intend it to appear as if you are laughing at the stupidity of your opponent. So you might as well say, every time you use it this way- "Your are a stupid person." Body language is still language.

Furthermore, it is a tactic of appearance bolstering. It is not an argument. It is designed to make one's self LOOK strong. More often than not when one has to use body language to do that it is because he senses that he is not able to look strong with his words and arguments.

It is what Joe Biden did in the debate against Paul Ryan. EVERYBODY knew that Paul Ryan was WAY smarter than Joe Biden. So Joe came up with a strategy. He would FAIN strength by laughing because he could not appear strong in outright debate.

The fact that you use the laughing symbol as often or more so than Joe Biden "laughed" at Paul Ryan is not a mark in your favor. To more thoughtful people it is obvious that it is a sign of your weakness in debate.

Since strawmen and misrepresenting the views of others are stupid, my little emoticon fit perfect. Its funny when people deliberately try to misrepresent.

 

[webdog]

It does not defy logic PERIOD- vantage point is irrelevant.

From OUR VANTAGE POINT tell me how Jesus walking on water defies any one of the following fundamental laws of logic

The law of identity- He did not cease to be what he was when he walked on water.

The law of noncontradiction- he was not himself and suddenly NOT himself the moment he began to walk on water


The law of the excluded middle- what was true about him was still completely true and had not at all become false the moment he began to walk on water

His walking on water did not undermine any one of the laws of logic.

You seem to me to still be getting the laws of nature which are MUTABLE, temporary, created laws mixed up with the laws of logic which are IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL and UNCREATED.

...and around and around we go. You are now disagreeing with HoS that an unnatural act apart from a supernatural act is actually logical?

 

[Luke2427]

I agree, thus to presume YOUR LOGIC = HIS LOGIC is just begging the question... which ironically enough is a fallacy of logical debate.

Luke, is an uncaused cause logical?

Is a person claiming to be one and three logical?

Is a person claiming to be fully God and fully man logical?

Is it logical for a man to be dead for 3 days and then be brought back to life?

Is it logical for a human to walk on water?

Yes to all five questions.

There is nothing about those examples that undermine the laws of logic.

This, I think, is your fundamental flaw.

It goes like this: I don't like the implications that God has ordained all things so I will come up with a way, or find a way that someone else has come up with, to deny it. Since there is no way to deny it without being illogical, I will toss out logic as it pertains to God. I will excuse my doing this by referencing miracles and supernatural works and saying -THERE! God does not have to be logical because he does illogical things all of the time!

But the problem evident in this reasoning is that you do not know what logic is.

Oh, yes, you know what a syllogism is. But you don't understand LOGIC. Because this is true you can fashion a theology that is not logical and when we call you on it you simply say- "IS THE TRINITY LOGICAL!!??"

The answer is- ABSOLUTELY.

That's your problem. Credible theology MUST bend to logic. Why? Because LOGIC IS AS MUCH OF GOD AS LOVE AND HOLINESS ARE.

So when your theology has God knowing all things and NOT knowing a whole bunch of things at the same time- IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE TRUE.

When your theology has God as One who has always known and will always know all there is to ever know about everything and still at the same time has him pondering things, forgetting things, making choices as if he did not always know what he would "choose"- your theology cannot be true because it is ILLOGICAL.

Wilson said it better than I could hope to say it:
Second, if you don't embrace [logic as an attribute of God], you lose all the Bible words. If God is not necessarily internally-consistent (which is what I am intending by all of this), then He could be holy and unholy as well. He could love the elect eternally and not love the elect eternally at all. Since He is so sovereign over logic, He could even exist and not exist at the same time. And if someone objects to your striking combination of theism and atheism, just tell them that you follow Jesus and not Aristotle. Which, if true, would allow you to follow Aristotle at the same time you are repudiating him.

 

[Luke2427]

...and around and around we go. You are now disagreeing with HoS that an unnatural act apart from a supernatural act is actually logical?

You evaded the questions.

 

[webdog]

You evaded the questions.

What questions? I asked you a question, I see no questions below. Somebody evaded the question...and it wasn't me.

Originally Posted by Luke2427
It does not defy logic PERIOD- vantage point is irrelevant.

From OUR VANTAGE POINT tell me how Jesus walking on water defies any one of the following fundamental laws of logic

The law of identity- He did not cease to be what he was when he walked on water.

The law of noncontradiction- he was not himself and suddenly NOT himself the moment he began to walk on water


The law of the excluded middle- what was true about him was still completely true and had not at all become false the moment he began to walk on water

His walking on water did not undermine any one of the laws of logic.

You seem to me to still be getting the laws of nature which are MUTABLE, temporary, created laws mixed up with the laws of logic which are IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL and UNCREATED.

So Peter could have logically walked on the water without supernatural intervention?

 

[Luke2427]

Iconoclast would tell you that you would lose that bet.

Since strawmen and misrepresenting the views of others are stupid, my little emoticon fit perfect. Its funny when people deliberately try to misrepresent.

No one has tried to misrepresent you.

You have said that walking on water defies logic. That is proof positive that you do not know what logic is.

So you laugh- because that is all you can do.

 

[Luke2427]

What questions? I asked you a question, I see no questions below. Somebody evaded the question...and it wasn't me.

Look more closely:

From OUR VANTAGE POINT tell me how Jesus walking on water defies any one of the following fundamental laws of logic

The law of identity- He did not cease to be what he was when he walked on water.

The law of noncontradiction- he was not himself and suddenly NOT himself the moment he began to walk on water


The law of the excluded middle- what was true about him was still completely true and had not at all become false the moment he began to walk on water

Unless you are going to get hung up on it not being in question form. But that would be petty. It is still a challenge in request form.

 

[webdog]

No one has tried to misrepresent you.

You have said that walking on water defies logic. That is proof positive that you do not know what logic is.

So you laugh- because that is all you can do.

Could Peter have stepped out from the boat and logically walked on water without supernatural intervention, yes or no.

 

[webdog]

Look more closely:



Unless you are going to get hung up on it not being in question form. But that would be petty. It is still a challenge in request form.

Asked and answered then.

 

[Luke2427]

What questions? I asked you a question, I see no questions below. Somebody evaded the question...and it wasn't me.




So Peter could have logically walked on the water without supernatural intervention?

Peter's ability to walk on water or not has nothing to DO with logic.

Yes, Peter could have tied helium balloons to himself and walked on water.

Peter could have put on inner tube shoes and walked on water.

Or Peter could walk on water because the power of God lifted him up on it.

The point is that this has to do with NATURAL LAWS- not laws of logic which PREDATE NATURE.

 

[Luke2427]

Asked and answered then.

Are you serious?

You really did get that petty.

WOW!

 

[webdog]

Peter's ability to walk on water or not has nothing to DO with logic.

Yes, Peter could have tied helium balloons to himself and walked on water.

Peter could have put on inner tube shoes and walked on water.

Or Peter could walk on water because the power of God lifted him up on it.

The point is that this has to do with NATURAL LAWS- not laws of logic which PREDATE NATURE.

Let's talk about petty, let's create hypothetical fictional situations to fit an unnatural act into your logic. You are aware the laws of nature are arrived at by mathematics and quantum logic, right?

 

[webdog]

Are you serious?

You really did get that petty.

WOW!

I am serious. A rod naturally cannot be both a piece of wood and a reptile. God can make them on and the same. Quite simple.

At any rate, what are you debating this for? In a predetermined world even my illogical view in your eyes must be logical. Who are to talk against God? Is that logical?

 

[Luke2427]

I am serious. A rod naturally cannot be both a piece of wood and a reptile. God can make them on and the same. Quite simple.

It was not a rod and a serpent at the same time any more than melted ice is a solid and a liquid at the same time.

There is no law of logic that says one thing cannot BECOME something else. The law of noncontradiction says it cannot BE itself and NOT be itself at the same time.

It was not that the rod was a rod and NOT a rod at the same time.

It BECAME a serpent.

So this does not violate the laws of logic.

 

[webdog]

It was not a rod and a serpent at the same time any more than melted ice is a solid and a liquid at the same time.

There is no law of logic that says one thing cannot BECOME something else. The law of noncontradiction says it cannot BE itself and NOT be itself at the same time.

It was not that the rod was a rod and NOT a rod at the same time.

It BECAME a serpent.

So this does not violate the laws of logic.

it was a rod and not a rod at the same time...supernaturally. Nobody carved tne wood into a serpent, and it didnt open up allowing a serpent to come out. The very laws of nature demand quantum logic.

 

[Luke2427]

it was a rod and not a rod at the same time...supernaturally.

No it wasn't. The text says "it BECAME a serpent".

Ice can BECOME water. When it does it is no longer ice.

A caterpillar can BECOME a butterfly. When it does it is no longer a caterpillar.

Ice that becomes water is not ice and AT THE SAME TIME water.

The rod that BECAME a serpent was not a rod and AT THE SAME TIME a serpent.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Luke 2427 posted to another poster....

Originally Posted by Luke2427
You just will not be helped.

The reason you know so little is because you think you know so much.

It is not just me who has tried to enlighten you here.

You just refuse to get it.

Laws of nature and laws of logic are two different things.

You'll have to face the fact that somebody knows more than you on this subject to learn it though. So you probably will never learn it.

Ahhh yes.

Of cource

You can always count on it from some calvinists. That arrogant pridefull condescention

Christ had some things to say about those atititudes, of cource.

 

[psalms109:31]

If you stand on water with nothing to support you, you will sink that is truth. All you're investigation will prove this. Jesus and Peter walking on water that we are not there to see or investigate we have to take it by faith as truth even if it is against what we have found as truth today.

Should faith be faith to believe in what we have not seen into logic or keep it as faith? To me logic is something you can prove as truth by investigation.

 

[webdog]

No it wasn't. The text says "it BECAME a serpent".

Ice can BECOME water. When it does it is no longer ice.

Its still water, the chemical makeup never changed. The DNA of wood and snakes are not the same.

A caterpillar can BECOME a butterfly. When it does it is no longer a caterpillar.

same DNA. It would be illogical to state a butterfly came from a mouse. I'm wondering if you find evolution, Darwinism, logical.

Ice that becomes water is not ice and AT THE SAME TIME water.

The rod that BECAME a serpent was not a rod and AT THE SAME TIME a serpent.

Total non sequitur. Ice IS water, its frozen water. A piece of wood is never a reptile and vice versa. Its silly to put so much emphasis on the word became.

 

[Luke2427]

Its still water, the chemical makeup never changed. The DNA of wood and snakes are not the same.

same DNA.


Total non sequitur. Ice IS water, its frozen water. A price of wood is never a reptile and vice versa. Its silly to put so much emphasis on the word became.

You are further illustrating that you do not understand logic.

Something can BE any NUMBER of things at the same time.

A man can be fat, a father, a welder, a husband, and tall all at the same time.

What he CAN'T be is be any one of those things and NOT be them at the same time.

A man cannot be fat and NOT fat at the same time.

Ice cannot be ice AND not ice at the same time. That part that has melted is no longer ice- it is now water.

A staff that BECOMES a serpent is now different than a staff that has NOT BECOME a serpent.

What it cannot do is be a staff and NOT be a staff at the same time. It cannot be a serpent and not be a serpent at the same time. It can be a regular staff and then a serpent staff but it cannot be a regualr staff while NOT being a regular staff and it cannot be a serpent staff while NOT being a serpent staff at the same time.

Nothing can.

That is logic.