Featured The greatest error on bb

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.

 

You evaded the questions.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Are you serious?

You really did get that petty.

WOW!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.