God's Thoughts

[Received]

I'm in a hurry this morning, so I can't go back to your original quote. However, I believe you said essentially "if it transcends it is God". Thus the mistake. Philosophical axioms transcend because they are true whether there is a universe or not.

But that doesn't mean that because philosophical axioms also "transcend" the universe (which I'm yet to understand what you mean) that therefore it's like God. Which is why I said something being red and another thing being red means they're both the same thing. I need you to 1) explain how an axiom transcends the universe, 2) how this transcendence for an axiom is like transcendence for God, and 3) how because one thing transcends and another thing transcends that they're therefore the same.

I appreciate you posting despite being busy, but this point really is the crux, so let's figure this one out first.

 

[BL2KTN]

But that doesn't mean that because philosophical axioms also "transcend" the universe (which I'm yet to understand what you mean) that therefore it's like God. Which is why I said something being red and another thing being red means they're both the same thing.

Because God, if we're going to have any real use for him, has to be "that being which transcends the physical universe."

If God is that being which transcends the physical universe and philosophical axioms transcend the physical universe, then philosophical axioms are God. They aren't. Your definition is incorrect.

I need you to 1) explain how an axiom transcends the universe

They are true independent of the universe. I have already explained this.

2) how this transcendence for an axiom is like transcendence for God

I'm not the one claiming God is transcendent.

3) how because one thing transcends and another thing transcends that they're therefore the same.

That's the point. Your definition results in this mistake, thus your definition is a mistake.

I appreciate you posting despite being busy, but this point really is the crux, so let's figure this one out first.

It would be a first.

 

[Received]

If God is that being which transcends the physical universe and philosophical axioms transcend the physical universe, then philosophical axioms are God. They aren't. Your definition is incorrect.

Then in order to progress, I'm going to need your thoughts on my previous response (which because you were in a hurry, it's all good, you didn't address):

I don't understand how axioms transcend the universe, and I don't understand how God is comparable in this sense. And saying X (e.g., God) has Z quality (e.g., transcending the universe) and Y (philosophical axioms) has Z quality (transcending the universe) means X is Y is fallacious. Just like a red balloon and a red guitar doesn't mean the balloon is the guitar.​

Another example: Bill is a republican. Jill is a republican. Therefore because they're both republicans, they're both the same people.

Do you think both examples are false? Why?

 

[BL2KTN]

Then in order to progress, I'm going to need your thoughts on my previous response (which because you were in a hurry, it's all good, you didn't address):

I addressed it.

I don't understand how axioms transcend the universe, and I don't understand how God is comparable in this sense. And saying X (e.g., God) has Z quality (e.g., transcending the universe) and Y (philosophical axioms) has Z quality (transcending the universe) means X is Y is fallacious. Just like a red balloon and a red guitar doesn't mean the balloon is the guitar.

Again, you're the one who said God is that which transcends the universe. There are other things that transcend the universe. Therefore, even if Yahweh transcends the universe (he doesn't), it isn't special.

.

Another example: Bill is a republican. Jill is a republican. Therefore because they're both republicans, they're both the same people.

Do you think both examples are false? Why?

Here's the flaw: you saying "God is that which transcends" is exactly like if you had said "Bill is that which is a Republican".

 

[Received]

I addressed it.



Again, you're the one who said God is that which transcends the universe. There are other things that transcend the universe. Therefore, even if Yahweh transcends the universe (he doesn't), it isn't special.

Again, BL, saying X and Y share quality Z means X = Y is fallacious. It's patently untrue as can be seen by multiple examples, which I've given. Do you think a red shoe and a red wagon therefore means that the shoe is the wagon? Why not?

Now you're appealing to "special," which I have no idea what you mean by this.

Here's the flaw: you saying "God is that which transcends" is exactly like if you had said "Bill is that which is a Republican".

Please explain.

 

[BL2KTN]

Again, BL, saying X and Y share quality Z means X = Y is fallacious. It's patently untrue as can be seen by multiple examples, which I've given. Do you think a red shoe and a red wagon therefore means that the shoe is the wagon? Why not?

Now you're appealing to "special," which I have no idea what you mean by this.



Please explain.

No, I'm done. You said A (transcends) = B (God), but now act as if you said A (transcends) = B (quality of some things including God). I don't know if you play these word games thinking you can never be wrong and must mask it somehow or if you're just genuinely this obtuse. Either way I don't care.

 

[Received]

No, I'm done. You said A (transcends) = B (God), but now act as if you said A (transcends) = B (quality of some things including God). I don't know if you play these word games thinking you can never be wrong and must mask it somehow or if you're just genuinely this obtuse. Either way I don't care.

Okay.

 

[Supreme]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed for discussing General Apologetics and for blaspheming God.

MOD HAT OFF