2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 262:
Line 262: − + + +
Colbert Report Viewers (view source)
Revision as of 05:32, December 16, 2009
, 05:32, December 16, 2009→The most logical book ever written
:::::::IMO, things get illogical because of divine inspirations, as an almighty God shouldn't be restricted by out ideas of logic!
:::::::IMO, things get illogical because of divine inspirations, as an almighty God shouldn't be restricted by out ideas of logic!
::::::: [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::::: [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::@FrankC: Here you are pretending to have knowledge of logic while simultaneously demonstrating that you have no idea what logic is whatsoever. How can I make such a bold claim? Here's why: "sounds as logical as ''visiting Leda as a swan." There are three classical Laws of Logic; the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and the Law of the Excluded Middle. None of those laws are violated if I were to jump up in the air right now and fly around like Superman. That would be violating natural laws but not logic. Likewise, none of the Laws of Logic were ever broken by God. Here's a hint why: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
(John 1:1)
The greek term for "word" is Logos which means Logic. I hope you actually take a class on critical reasoning soon. We can't have pseudo-intellectuals like you clogging up the "tubes" of the internet.
::::::: It is difficult to argue the logic of the Bible with those who's foundation for logic is the Bible. Those who believe in it's absolute faultlessness as a starting point for logic can not be convinced of it's fault. Any reference to it's contradictions will only be met with vehement conviction of it's supreme divinity. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::::: It is difficult to argue the logic of the Bible with those who's foundation for logic is the Bible. Those who believe in it's absolute faultlessness as a starting point for logic can not be convinced of it's fault. Any reference to it's contradictions will only be met with vehement conviction of it's supreme divinity. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, I think you have a good discussion going on here. Maybe you should consider moving it to a more relevant topic page as we have moved far beyond the The Colbert Report. We have a great discussion with a respectable tone going on here and I would like to see it progress and perhaps invite more from all sides to join in. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)