above logic???

[Grega]

This thread is inspired by a conversation I had with my brother today which started with me asking him what sort of Christian was he. Essentially I was curious as to whether he was a hardline fundamentalist or was he a more liberal Christian. His reply demonstrated, to my chagrin, that he is a fundamentalist and through an hour long discourse we had, where I had to justify my problems with what he was trying to sell me; he basically told me there and then that he will not listen to logic, and that all my arguments fail because he believes his god is above logic.

Is this the case with some of [edit] you folks?...Do you hold that some statements about your god can be simultaneously true and NOT true?...can your god be omnipotent and NOT omnipotent at the same time? can he be God and NOT God? does your god transcend logic?

If so, how could one possibly expect a person who does value logic, a person who does not see it merely as a human construct, to find truth in any arguments that champion this particular formulation of a god?

 

[Chesterton]

If so, how could one possibly expect a person who does value logic, a person who does not see it merely as a human construct, to find truth in any arguments that champion this particular formulation of a god?

Preliminarily, if you don't see human logic merely as a human construct, then should I assume you see it as a material construct? If so, how can you know that it's true and reliable?

 

[ephraimanesti]

does your god transcend logic?

Of course God transcends our faulty human reasoning and its waste product--a mostly illogical logic. After all, it was our forebears in the Garden, "logically" seeking after "the knowledge of good and evil," who got us into this mess in the first place. God, on the other hand, has used His superior LOGIC to rescue us from the effects of our "logic" by sacrificing His only begotten Son to clean up our mistake and its disasterous effects.

As God states, " 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways.' This is the Lord's declaration. 'For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.' "(Isaiah 55:8, 9)

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[arunma]

This thread is inspired by a conversation I had with my brother today which started with me asking him what sort of Christian was he. Essentially I was curious as to whether he was a hardline fundamentalist or was he a more liberal Christian. His reply demonstrated, to my chagrin, that he is a fundamentalist and through an hour long discourse we had, where I had to justify my problems with what he was trying to sell me; he basically told me there and then that he will not listen to logic, and that all my arguments fail because he believes his god is above logic.

Is this the case with you folks?...Do you hold that some statements about your god can be simultaneously true and NOT true?...can your god be omnipotent and NOT omnipotent at the same time? can he be God and NOT God? does your god transcend logic?

If so, how could one possibly expect a person who does value logic, a person who does not see it merely as a human construct, to find truth in any arguments that champion this particular formulation of a god?

You seem to have an interesting definition of fundamentalism, one that I don't think the general population holds. As far as I can tell, when most Americans use the words "fundamentalist Christian," they are referring to Christians who hold to the orthodox doctrines of Scripture. And to pluralistic American society, the most offensive and noteworthy of all orthodox doctrines (and thus the one by which they measure a person's fundamentalism) is the doctrine of salvation solely by faith in Christ, apart from other religions. In other words, fundamentalists believe that all non-Christians are going to hell. And if this is our working definition, then I am most certainly a fundamentalist, since I believe that all people who practice non-Christian religions (theistic or atheistic) will go to hell. If we can all be honest for a moment, I think it's obvious that this doctrine is ultimately the reason that many people perjoratively label many Christians as fundamentalists. But since it is such an important doctrine, I feel it important to note that I fully embrace it.

But do I reject logic? Certainly not. And if this is how you define fundamentalism, then I am not a fundamentalist. To be sure, I do not believe that God is a slave to logic or anything else. However, to even suggest such a thing is to make a false dichotomy between God and logic. It can be clearly inferred from the Scriptures that logic is one of God's attributes. God does not act contrary to his own attributes, and so God does not "transcend" logic anymore than he transcends holiness or righteousness. All of these things are a part of who God is. None of the doctrines of the Bible are illogical. Neither our belief in the existence of God, nor his supernatural characteristics, nor the resurrection of Christ and salvation by faith in his Gospel, are illogical beliefs. I do not have faith in the existence of God or the resurrection of Christ; rather I take these as objective truths. Biblically speaking, faith is a hope in a currently unrealized promise of God. As it says,

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
​

Therefore my faith is in God's promise that by trusting in Jesus Christ, I can be saved from my sins. The existence of God is an objective fact that can be verified by the Bible's historical record of his dealings with man. The same is true of the resurrection of Jesus. Often times people state that the existence of God is an illogical proposition that must be taken on faith. This is flawed because it demeans faith by portraying it as illogical. Furthermore it ignores the fact that God's existence is an objective reality. Even God's enemies believe in him, as it says,

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! (James 2:19)
​

Do demons have faith in God? Certainly not. They disbelieve his promise that he will destroy them for their rebellion. And yet they believe in his existence. So clearly the existence of God is not something that has to be taken on faith. I think that all too many times, non-Christians object to our portrayal of the resurrection of Jesus as a definitive truth, stating rather that it is "a matter of faith." Perhaps non-Christians think that God will not fault them for not having faith, i.e. they think that they can reject Jesus and not go to hell for it. Alas, this is speculation on my part, as I can't know the ultimate motives of non-Christians.

But to address your initial point, it seems that your brother may be misunderstanding certain Christian doctrines if he rejects logic. One ought not to believe in the doctrines of the faith and reject logic. Logic is rather instrumental to understanding the Scriptures, so any Christian who rejects it is experiencing a cognative dissonance of sorts.

 

[Grega]

Preliminarily, if you don't see human logic merely as a human construct, then should I assume you see it as a material construct? If so, how can you know that it's true and reliable?

Preliminarily, if you don't see human logic merely as a human construct, then should I assume you see it as a material construct?
I say that logic is a set of universal rules one should accept axiomatically to be valid. I assert it is more than just a human concept in that we humans have merely "discoverd the rules"

If so, how can you know that it's true and reliable?
How can one determine anything to be true/reliable if contradiction is valid?

 

[ephraimanesti]

I say that logic is a set of universal rules one should accept axiomatically to be valid. I assert it is more than just a human concept in that we humans have merely "discoverd the rules"

Soooooo . . . if there is no God--who makes the rules?

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Grega]

You seem to have an interesting definition of fundamentalism, one that I don't think the general population holds. As far as I can tell, when most Americans use the words "fundamentalist Christian," they are referring to Christians who hold to the orthodox doctrines of Scripture. And to pluralistic American society, the most offensive and noteworthy of all orthodox doctrines (and thus the one by which they measure a person's fundamentalism) is the doctrine of salvation solely by faith in Christ, apart from other religions. In other words, fundamentalists believe that all non-Christians are going to hell. And if this is our working definition, then I am most certainly a fundamentalist, since I believe that all people who practice non-Christian religions (theistic or atheistic) will go to hell. If we can all be honest for a moment, I think it's obvious that this doctrine is ultimately the reason that many people perjoratively label many Christians as fundamentalists. But since it is such an important doctrine, I feel it important to note that I fully embrace it.

But do I reject logic? Certainly not. And if this is how you define fundamentalism, then I am not a fundamentalist. To be sure, I do not believe that God is a slave to logic or anything else. However, to even suggest such a thing is to make a false dichotomy between God and logic. It can be clearly inferred from the Scriptures that logic is one of God's attributes. God does not act contrary to his own attributes, and so God does not "transcend" logic anymore than he transcends holiness or righteousness. All of these things are a part of who God is. None of the doctrines of the Bible are illogical. Neither our belief in the existence of God, nor his supernatural characteristics, nor the resurrection of Christ and salvation by faith in his Gospel, are illogical beliefs. I do not have faith in the existence of God or the resurrection of Christ; rather I take these as objective truths. Biblically speaking, faith is a hope in a currently unrealized promise of God. As it says,

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
​

Therefore my faith is in God's promise that by trusting in Jesus Christ, I can be saved from my sins. The existence of God is an objective fact that can be verified by the Bible's historical record of his dealings with man. The same is true of the resurrection of Jesus. Often times people state that the existence of God is an illogical proposition that must be taken on faith. This is flawed because it demeans faith by portraying it as illogical. Furthermore it ignores the fact that God's existence is an objective reality. Even God's enemies believe in him, as it says,

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! (James 2:19)
​

Do demons have faith in God? Certainly not. They disbelieve his promise that he will destroy them for their rebellion. And yet they believe in his existence. So clearly the existence of God is not something that has to be taken on faith. I think that all too many times, non-Christians object to our portrayal of the resurrection of Jesus as a definitive truth, stating rather that it is "a matter of faith." Perhaps non-Christians think that God will not fault them for not having faith, i.e. they think that they can reject Jesus and not go to hell for it. Alas, this is speculation on my part, as I can't know the ultimate motives of non-Christians.

But to address your initial point, it seems that your brother may be misunderstanding certain Christian doctrines if he rejects logic. One ought not to believe in the doctrines of the faith and reject logic. Logic is rather instrumental to understanding the Scriptures, so any Christian who rejects it is experiencing a cognative dissonance of sorts.

You seem to have an interesting definition of fundamentalism, one that I don't think the general population holds. As far as I can tell, when most Americans use the words "fundamentalist Christian," they are referring to Christians who hold to the orthodox doctrines of Scripture. And to pluralistic American society, the most offensive and noteworthy of all orthodox doctrines (and thus the one by which they measure a person's fundamentalism) is the doctrine of salvation solely by faith in Christ, apart from other religions. In other words, fundamentalists believe that all non-Christians are going to hell. And if this is our working definition, then I am most certainly a fundamentalist, since I believe that all people who practice non-Christian religions (theistic or atheistic) will go to hell. If we can all be honest for a moment, I think it's obvious that this doctrine is ultimately the reason that many people perjoratively label many Christians as fundamentalists. But since it is such an important doctrine, I feel it important to note that I fully embrace it.

But do I reject logic? Certainly not. And if this is how you define fundamentalism, then I am not a fundamentalist. To be sure, I do not believe that God is a slave to logic or anything else. However, to even suggest such a thing is to make a false dichotomy between God and logic. It can be clearly inferred from the Scriptures that logic is one of God's attributes. God does not act contrary to his own attributes, and so God does not "transcend" logic anymore than he transcends holiness or righteousness. All of these things are a part of who God is. None of the doctrines of the Bible are illogical. Neither our belief in the existence of God, nor his supernatural characteristics, nor the resurrection of Christ and salvation by faith in his Gospel, are illogical beliefs. I do not have faith in the existence of God or the resurrection of Christ; rather I take these as objective truths. Biblically speaking, faith is a hope in a currently unrealized promise of God. As it says,
Hmm...you would define fundamentalist pretty much the way I would...I failed to state this fully in my OP however as it was more important that I communicated the fact that bolted on to my brother's convictions with respect to his faith is the assumption that logic need not hold for God.

Therefore my faith is in God's promise that by trusting in Jesus Christ, I can be saved from my sins. The existence of God is an objective fact that can be verified by the Bible's historical record of his dealings with man. The same is true of the resurrection of Jesus. Often times people state that the existence of God is an illogical proposition that must be taken on faith. This is flawed because it demeans faith by portraying it as illogical. Furthermore it ignores the fact that God's existence is an objective reality. Even God's enemies believe in him, as it says
See...I disagree with you here. It can be determined that scripture can indeed make statements you will believe to be true, but I have seen no demonstration that I cannot logically find these statements to be false..for one it has not been shown that even if your Bible is the inspired word of god, why it must be true that your god cannot/didn't lie! Attempts so far to do this have required the use scripture...but this requires that it be demonstrated that this scripture is always true in the first place!...and this would require you show that your god cannot lie...and so on!
As an outsider looking in without the same level of veneration for your god that you do, I see no reason why any of the attributes attached to it should be true unless they are justified by means of some objective criteria that doesn't use your god as point of origin in the first place!
More importantly, I can 'imagine' a creator entity that isn't loving, isn't always good, isn't always truthful, isn't omniscient, isn't omnipotent but still creator of the universe!

Furthermore if your Bible is not actually the inspired word of god, but more it is a potentially erronious human account of a god that perhaps exists then the above is moot anyway.

Basically, I don't see why the existence of your god (ie: your formulation of it) is objective fact

Do demons have faith in God? Certainly not. They disbelieve his promise that he will destroy them for their rebellion. And yet they believe in his existence. So clearly the existence of God is not something that has to be taken on faith...
This inference being valid requires that your scripture be true...and that remains to be shown
...I think that all too many times, non-Christians object to our portrayal of the resurrection of Jesus as a definitive truth, stating rather that it is "a matter of faith." Perhaps non-Christians think that God will not fault them for not having faith, i.e. they think that they can reject Jesus and not go to hell for it. Alas, this is speculation on my part, as I can't know the ultimate motives of non-Christians
More we don't recognise this 'hell' to be something that exists for us to wish to avoid!

But to address your initial point, it seems that your brother may be misunderstanding certain Christian doctrines if he rejects logic. One ought not to believe in the doctrines of the faith and reject logic. Logic is rather instrumental to understanding the Scriptures, so any Christian who rejects it is experiencing a cognative dissonance of sorts.
He will no doubt accept logic so long as it is useful to him...but for some of the propositions I might argue are contradictory he will offer no counter argument other than "god is above logic"!

 

[Grega]

Soooooo . . . if there is no God--who makes the rules?

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

For one...where did I suggest there is no god? (notice I dropped the capital 'g')

 

[ebia]

Hmm.

Strikes me that's an awful lot of philosophic groundwork to be done on the subject of logic (meta-logic?) before one can sensibly begin to think about the question you pose.

For instance, are the 'rules' of logic prescriptive or descriptive?

 

[ephraimanesti]

For one...where did I suggest there is no god? (notice I dropped the capital 'g')

Well, you are flying the atheist logo--you know, the one with the darkened brain area--so i just assumed . . .

Plus you dropped the capital "g," so again i just assumed . . .

So you do accept God's reality. i am so relieved and happy for you!

ephraim

 

[drich0150]

First and fore most our relationships with God are supposed to be just that. Personal Relationships. Now imagine someone introducing a "fact" like your brother isn't actually your brother, maybe be he was adopted. Does that change your relationship? Even if all the logic or labels others may wish to put on him, prove to them that he isn't your brother, will any of that change how you will treat/love him?

What if you were the adopted one? Would it change anything in your family dynamic, if someone outside your family doesn't like the fact your happy, and attempts to show you why you all shouldn't be happy because things aren't how THEY would like them to be?

In the case of a family Relationship, it should prove to transcends bloodlines.. You are your brothers, brother, because you say he is first, and his blood or the fact you share DNA is a secondary concern.

 

[Grega]

Well, you are flying the atheist logo--you know, the one with the darkened brain area--so i just assumed . . .

Plus you dropped the capital "g," so again i just assumed . . .

So you do accept God's reality. i am so relieved and happy for you!

ephraim

No ephraim, I do not accept your god's reality...I fly the atheist logo because to say I'm agnostic would be too weak a statement for my conviction that the defined god's I have knowledge of, and held to be true by theists do not exist...If I had any inclination towards a spiritual belief it would be deism, but I have no positive belief even in that

 

[Grega]

Hmm.

Strikes me that's an awful lot of philosophic groundwork to be done on the subject of logic (meta-logic?) before one can sensibly begin to think about the question you pose.

For instance, are the 'rules' of logic prescriptive or descriptive?

Ebia...I thank you for your response but I have no formal training in philosophy, only mathematics, and currently at a lower level than yourself. I see that this could be an interesting conversation were you to humour me here; but I have exams in a month and have not the time right now to pursue the rigourous training in formal logic you would require of me to discuss whether statements can be broken down to their atoms whereby precise and unambiguous inferences can be drawn, and checked against the inferences one must draw from other given propositions.

Essentially I hold that certain statements about certain formulations of god are contradictory and can be demonstrated as such...but I have spent way too much time on these forums...you may consider this one a victory

 

[ephraimanesti]

No ephraim, I do not accept your god's reality...I fly the atheist logo because to say I'm agnostic would be too weak a statement for my conviction that the defined god's I have knowledge of, and held to be true by theists do not exist...If I had any inclination towards a spiritual belief it would be deism, but I have no positive belief even in that

No one can "define" God. The best we can do is enumerate and attempt to get a handle on some of His attributes. i am sure that our puny attempts at "definition" must amuse Him no end.

Part of one of my favorite Liturgical Prayers points this indefinable quality of God out: "It is meet and right to hymn Thee, to bless Thee, to praise Thee, to give thanks to Thee, and to worship Thee in every place of Thy dominion: for Thou are God ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same. Thou and Thine only-begotten Son and Thy Holy Spirit. Thou it was who brought us from non-existence into being and, when we had fallen away, didst raise us up again, and didst not cease to do all things until Thou hadst brought us up to heaven, and hadst endowed us with Thy Kingdom which is to come."

Bobby Dylan was right-on when he sang, "You got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." It is obvious from your post what you are AGAINST; what exactly do you stand FOR?

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

This thread is inspired by a conversation I had with my brother today which started with me asking him what sort of Christian was he. Essentially I was curious as to whether he was a hardline fundamentalist or was he a more liberal Christian. His reply demonstrated, to my chagrin, that he is a fundamentalist and through an hour long discourse we had, where I had to justify my problems with what he was trying to sell me; he basically told me there and then that he will not listen to logic, and that all my arguments fail because he believes his god is above logic.

his god is above logic.

above logic

Ummmmmm.... .
Where's your brother? God isn't above logic, rather he created a capacity for logic in us human beings.
I'm sure God uses logic just like the rest of us, except his isn't flawed and riddled with prejudices, bias, hate, etc.

Maybe he means above man's logic, but even then...
I'm sorry, I just don't get what he means.
I'd have to argue with him sometime to figure it out, I guess.

 

[NewToLife]

I dont think God needs to be above logic per se He simply needs to be beyond the human capacity for logic. Personally I think its reasonable to assume that a limit on the human capacity for logic exists, I make the assumption based on years of experience as a software developer which has seen me work with some extremely talented people, yet I have never encountered one who does not make quite regular ( and oftentimes basic ) mistakes.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Ummmmmm.... .
Where's your brother? God isn't above logic, rather he created a capacity for logic in us human beings.
I'm sure God uses logic just like the rest of us, except his isn't flawed and riddled with prejudices, bias, hate, etc.

Maybe he means above man's logic, but even then...
I'm sorry, I just don't get what he means.
I'd have to argue with him sometime to figure it out, I guess.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

LOGIC IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

If there is no God, then there are no absolutes--logic included.

If there are no absolutes, all logic becomes subjective and relative.

Fortunately, there IS a God and therefore there are absolutes--in logic as in morality as in values, etc.

Again, fortunately, God's LOGIC is far beyond our puny human "logic" which began in the Garden and will end in us destroying ourselves--both spiritually and temporaly--both during time and in eternity--as our Creator states, " 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.' "(Isaiah 55:8, 9)

Dear God, save us from our disasterously illogical "logic"!​

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[heymikey80]

First and fore most our relationships with God are supposed to be just that. Personal Relationships. Now imagine someone introducing a "fact" like your brother isn't actually your brother, maybe be he was adopted. Does that change your relationship? Even if all the logic or labels others may wish to put on him, prove to them that he isn't your brother, will any of that change how you will treat/love him?

What if you were the adopted one? Would it change anything in your family dynamic, if someone outside your family doesn't like the fact your happy, and attempts to show you why you all shouldn't be happy because things aren't how THEY would like them to be?

In the case of a family Relationship, it should prove to transcends bloodlines.. You are your brothers, brother, because you say he is first, and his blood or the fact you share DNA is a secondary concern.

drich0150, your thoughts have quite an impact on me when considering Grega's OP.

Grega, by way of illustration say I'm skeptical your parents ever existed. The full span of logic needed to require their existence is very extensive, and it's unlikely you'd argue this deductively, step by step, without certain assumptions of progeny and cause/effect.

All this would be beside the point of the truth. You experienced your parents.

I'd assume your brother likely has a relationship with God. You don't, so you don't see what he sees. The full span of logic even in your skepticism would not convince him otherwise. He has a basic experience of God. Logic can't overthrow basic experience (in fact logic is really only applied to conceptualized experience, which is at least one step removed from basic experience).

When the concepts are wrong, the logic around those concepts is systemically wrong. Logic is only a formalized method of communicating meaning. When the basic concepts aren't true, neither is the logic surrounding them.

So what are you asking? Are you asking whether God can do things in ways that confound the language? Things that force us into different concepts of reality? I think God does that all the time. But I don't think God is ultimately meaningless. If meaning can be communicated, God's actions, concepts and logic are perfect.

They're just not ours.

 

[[serious]]

There are some rather cautious in risking their faith by testing it. My own view is that steel sharpens steel. If I do not test what I believe it is because I fear being wrong. If I test it and I find I am wrong, I have lost nothing but an error. If I test it and it withstands, my faith is strengthened. It's like the parable of the talents, if we quake to risk what we have been given, even what we have will be lost. If we risk it that it will grow, we will be rewarded.

 

[Grega]

drich0150, your thoughts have quite an impact on me when considering Grega's OP.

Grega, by way of illustration say I'm skeptical your parents ever existed. The full span of logic needed to require their existence is very extensive, and it's unlikely you'd argue this deductively, step by step, without certain assumptions of progeny and cause/effect.

All this would be beside the point of the truth. You experienced your parents.

I'd assume your brother likely has a relationship with God. You don't, so you don't see what he sees. The full span of logic even in your skepticism would not convince him otherwise. He has a basic experience of God. Logic can't overthrow basic experience (in fact logic is really only applied to conceptualized experience, which is at least one step removed from basic experience).

When the concepts are wrong, the logic around those concepts is systemically wrong. Logic is only a formalized method of communicating meaning. When the basic concepts aren't true, neither is the logic surrounding them.

So what are you asking? Are you asking whether God can do things in ways that confound the language? Things that force us into different concepts of reality? I think God does that all the time. But I don't think God is ultimately meaningless. If meaning can be communicated, God's actions, concepts and logic are perfect.

They're just not ours.

k...see I was going to refrain from posting here for a while, but I am more interested in the faulty premises which are accepted to be true by many Christians which lead to paradoxical conclusions. The properties which I see are lazily attached to capital 'g' God are incoherent yet any demonstration on my part that such claims are not valid are swept away by the assertion that 'G'od is above our human logic.

I do not concern myself so much that our language can fall prey of such things like the liar paradox etc...since though people may suppose that perhaps P and ¬P can be both true in these cases, they address only syntactical and language based problems...they don't address specific statements about particular objects that can unambiguously and absolutely be determined to be one of true or not true....To be blunt I don't concern myself with your problems with the human constructed 'language' of logic.
However I am very much concerned with what must be true and what must be not true given that a certain premise is true...I am concerned with assertions about the properties of your god that unequivically can be reduced to the following:
P => Q
R => S
S => ¬Q
Given: R and P are true

An example...let P be the statement 'G'od is omnipotent, then Q is the conclusion it can do all things
R is the statement 'G'od is omniscient, then S is the conclusion it knows all things
Now then, if your god is omniscient it knows all things and so it must know even what actions it itself shall perform (from it's own perspective) such that if your god sees itself do X then for all actions it performs, the resultant outcome will be that it does X..ie; for all Y=/=X 'G'od cannot do Y given it knows it will do X. (otherwise if it knows it will do X, and then instead does Y then it did not know it would do X in the first place)
This can then be expressed as S => ¬Q
We are often given that P and R are true, ie that 'G'od is omnipotent and omniscient...this is a contradiction for P AND R => S AND Q; yet S => ¬Q! and I say that the properties/premises you hold to be true about 'G'od should be revised

I moan about such things because I have other problems with your god, and the standard responses I hear to such are not valid.


edit: apologies...I'm slightly drunk, ho...ho...ho!