Gila Guerilla
i dont debate with atheists to convince them there is a god, if i was i would had left this forum long time ago with disappointment
i am here for a good debate to learn and hopefully other will learn from me
my concept of god is illogical to you that doesn't mean it illogical for me
my understanding of god is very simple without mystery, rational and just god
What I did with my
Examining the "God" of Syed posts, was to show that your concept of "God" is illogical and therefore also impossible.
What you have said here is that you will accept the illogical, (as logical to you). Logic is a branch of philosophy, which I partly explained
to you in my series of posts.
For example, a thing cannot be
A and
not A at the same time. I gave you several examples, and again I give the example, a man cannot be
single, (unmarried), as well as married at one and the same time. Nobody can just 'turn around' and say: "Well I choose to say that a man can
be
single and married at the same time, because my understanding of marriage is simple and so it isn't illogical to me that a man can
be
single and married at the same time".
But your concept of "God" is illogical in the sense that it disobeys the laws of logic. Logical thinking
has to follow three rules, (the laws of logic) :-
1.
The law of identity:
X = X
Something is what it is, and it's not something else.
2.
The law of non-contradiction: The relationship
A = B and A = NOT(B) are mutually exclusive.
Something is cannot be what it is and its opposite at the same time.
3.
The law of the excluded middle: If a statement may be true or false, it must be one or the other.
A true/false statement cannot be halfway in between; it cannot be both true and false at the same time, nor a bit true or a bit false.
To be logical, statements which
may be true
or false have to be expressed in such a way that they are only either true OR false.
If your concept of "God"
abuses any of these laws, the concept is flawed, and makes the god so defined as to be impossible. I claim that your concept
of "God" does indeed contain flaws of logic, and no matter whether or not you are satisfied with your concept, the truth is that if it contains such
failures of logic, it cannot be a concept which reflects the truth. Thus the concept needs to be changed.
You claim to be here to learn. Well I have given you a pretty good, lesson in why your concept of "God" is impossible. You obviously haven't learned from it
because you are saying that you will accept the illogical, and not change the concept. Now that is
NOT rational ! ! !
By the way, I do not go into all of the ways in which you concept of "God" has illogicalities. There are OTHER ways in which you concept of "God" has illogicalities,
but I would need to ask you a lot more questions, and I don't think that they can be answered, before the flaws in your god-concept are fixed first.
In
Part 1 of
Examining the "God" of Syed posts, I posted your claims, and they are
not simple, as you claim above. It took me 10 pages of A4 text to look at
your concept in detail, and analyse why it is wrong; so ~ simple it is not. It's only simple if you use a throw away line, and just say that it's simple. The only
thing simple about it is if you are the lazy about your beliefs and concepts. To be lazy or to make an effort, (on your part), is your choice. But don't forget,
we, (readers of these posts), can all see what is going on.
You claim that your concept of "God" is illogical to me, (ie. to
Gila Guerilla). That is not my claim. MY claim is that your concept of "God" is illogical - period.
Any person who looks at what I have written must say: "Yes,
Gila Guerilla is right, the concept of "God" as represented by
Syed does not make sense -
it contains failures of logic."
Now if your understanding of "God" makes no sense because it's illogical, you have no case to make for any debate, and saying it's a god that is
very simple without
mystery, rational and just god, is nothing more than saying: "I will not change my ways of thinking no matter what the truth may be". You aren't just saying:
"I will accept what is illogical to
Gila Guerilla, but OK to me,
Syed", You are saying: "I,
Syed, will accept what is
illogical, period". In other words you are happy
to accept the impossible.
Now if you abandon your concept of "God", to avoid the illogicalities, then what you end up with really is a mystery, and thus you will be being irrational.
You claim to debate atheists, but I say that you do not debate at all, what you do is preach. If you are going to debate, you need to state your assumptions,
and demonstrate that they are true. If you cannot do that, then you automatically fail, (in debating terms), or in terms of offering truth claims. But preaching is not debating.
As I've said, it's up to you to point out where there are errors in what I've posted, because I too want to learn, where there is something to be learned. If
you can find errors in my line of reasoning, I will look into them and try to fix the problems. If you do not do so, then you have no basis for debate or truth.
Unfortunately I have no respect for that, and I hope you won't respond with an
I don't care reply again.
