fastlane69,
In response to this:
"ChrisTodd, define your logic please. I fear that the definition I use and your logic are not the same as the application of my logic is independent of my religious beliefs and personal opinions, ie my worldview."
So are there different laws of logic ("my logic")? You absolutely cannot seperate logic from your religion or opinions. Let me say I agree generally with that definition, but I am justifying the possibility of laws of logic within the Christian framework. The laws of logic are not just there. They are not invarient, universal, abstract entities 'just because' as you seem to hold. They cannot justify themselves as you would need to assume them to prove them; which is circular and illogical. Math and logic are possible within the Christian worldview but not possible within your worldview. They don't make sense in your worldview which is why your worldview is wrong and needs to be scrapped.
And these are basic doctrines found in any version of the bible listed on that long list whoever posted it before.

Sorry Gentleman I must go to bed and pick this back up tommorrow. Thanks for your thoughts.

ChrisTodd,
I am willing to accept my human nature as contradictory, you are not; this is why I stated that you search for black and white. My ultimate goal is to redefine what black and white really are, at the heart. For instance I am willing to suppose that reason and understanding do not exist. They are equally as valid patterns of thought as any other, in my view. As I stated, when I say anything of any confidence, I say it with the supposition that I may be completely wrong. My humanity rejects your structure of belief, but I am always willing to accept the possibility that it is wrong to do so. This is why my particular life is filled with so much uncertainty, until I finally come to a (tentative) conclusion on things, one by one. It can be taken seriously or not, but it may just be the only way to get to the bottom of all this. I find it hard to accept that simply explaining everything away, allowing oneself to be assimilated into a snowball of like-thinkers, reading a text and just believing it, without any specific cause to believe that specific text, is the correct way to go.

But I am willing to accept that there are other possibilities. Our views may in fact be intertwined; perhaps we are both as close to being right as the other. There is a reason I don't call myself an atheist. I refuse to assume.

Logic is a procedure, independent of religion or opinion. You may not be aware of this, but this is a game engine forum for making (ie: programming) games. Thus we all understand logic in terms of "if/then" which applies no matter what my beliefs. This is why I think you have a unique definition of logic that is personal and not universal.



Not as far as I'm concerned which is why I ask you to define your version of logic. If your definition of logic and my (wikipedia) definition of logic are the same, then we have a common starting point from which we can better understand scripture and reality.




So are you saying that only christians with their christian worldviews can do or properly understand math and logic?
Or are you saying that my not being a christian nullifies all the math and logic I have learned?

There are many more people that think certain scriptures should be included and others excluded. It's just that nowadays people make a great fuzz about changing the Bible, it's not as easy as it used to be.

You should search the internet and libraries, there are actually quite a lot scholars who suggest to adapt the Bible on many points. They are also just about the only religious people I know who really admit the errors and contradictions that can be found in the Bible,



Wherever human error can be found, we can be sure it's either totally man made and made up or extensively edited by man through time. Considering the amount of different authors I doubt the whole 'they were divine inspired' thing anyways, but regardless of that.. it simply contains too many errors to be divine,

Cheers

fastlane69,
You misunderstand me when you say: "This is why I think you have a unique definition of logic that is personal and not universal."
I have stated emphatically that logic is universal and not simply subjective. Again you state:
"If your definition of logic and my (wikipedia) definition of logic are the same, then we have a common starting point from which we can better understand scripture and reality."
We agree that our worldviews must be logical, I am stating that yours is not logical because it cannot account for the laws of logic and science and your worldview should be scrapped.
To answer your question "So are you saying that only christians with their christian worldviews can do or properly understand math and logic?" Basically non-Christians can do math and use logic many times even better than Christians. But non-Christians cannot account for math and logic and their ability to use math and logic. When you are asked to explain how this is possible in an atheistic worldview you cannot; rather you end up contradicting yourselves and destroying logic and math and science and ethics.

ArtimusBena,
I agree that human nature is contradictory, in the Christian worldview sin dwells in our human nature which is why we die, get math problems wrong, misunderstand things etc. Sin is why your "humanity rejects" my Christian structure of belief. I do not agree that logic is simply in or from our human nature.
You are lost in agnosticism fighting against certainty. Logic is certain, and math is certain but you won't admit it even though you use them as though they are certain. I am trying to show you the reason why they are certain- the God of the bible. You are contradicting yourself and opposing yourself. On the one hand you use logic to try and cast out certainty; but you are certain you can do this because you are certain logic will certainly allow you to do this and you are certain that you are using logic correctly to arrive at these conclusions. You are certain that there is no certainty.
I am appealing to you to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the explanation for life and everything you experience in it. Because finally we will all appear before his judgment seat and give an account for what we did with the lives and minds he gave us. And it won't be a good thing if you continue to live in opposition to your own self interest.

Ohh hold on, logic is not at all synonymous for 'certainty'. Quite the opposite, as through logic many more questions rise. Questions that religious people, no offense, totally seem to ignore.



Perhaps I'm asking too much, but I'd really like you to explain why you think this is what will going to happen. From the perspective of logic and science, no one ever lived to tell what really happened. Not even Jesus actually.

A lot of religious people regularly raise their index finger in some kind of semi-angry way to say how 'we' the not religious infidels are fools because we do not believe in those roaring thunder speeches of preachers or texts within the Bible.

From a psychological point of view, I think most religious believers are just acting in a copy-cat way, as their whole belief system is based on a psychological form of social control. Of course, no one would ever really admit they have fallen for the peer pressure of the system.

Cheers

PHeMoX,
If you don't have a divine revelation (the bible) you cannot account for your life experience. Men are so corrupted by sin that they cannot even understand the bible correctly- thus all of the denominations and cults. But without the bible you cannot account for logic, science or morality. Notice I did not say you cannot be moral, scientific, or logical to some degree. But you cannot understand how it's possible.
And furthermore the bible teaches in Romans 1 that you know God absolutely from his created order and you do not like to retain him in your knowledge. Rather in your mind you change his image into an image made like to a corruptible man. Thus people claim the God of the bible is a dictator like Hitler or Stalin. Or God is a murderer or egomaniac etc. and slander and mock the source of logic, science, love, beauty.
Then they expect him to judge them according to their own moral judgments. Not going to work that way. God will judge in grave seriousness.

Of course you're assuming there will be a time at which everybody will have to account for their lives to begin with. All I'm asking here is 'why' do you think so.

I personally believe death is the only real penalty we can get as far as misbehaving in this world and then it's not even a real penalty as it's inevitably going to happen at some point in ones life anyways. Does this mean people can get away with a lot of evil things? Yes, definitely, but what's new?



There's one of those claims again. No offense, but how do you even know what God will think or what he is going to do? You dare to think for him, isn't that a sin as well?

Also, going by the Bible.. God seems to be a lot of personalities performing some kind of off-center balance act when it comes to good and evil. I do not think the Bible proves he's 'just' at all and I also think it's quite clear that in his wisdom he made at least some errors in his judgment along the way.

But I guess that's a matter of interpretation and my point of view on things.



Yes, true, however can't you see the irony when people make claims like 'God will do this' and 'God won't like that'????



What exactly do you mean here? Logic (in all it's different forms) provides quite a nice reference to how things make sense in this world. It's much more abstract, but in no way does not believing in God make things 'impossible' to understand. To tell you the truth, I don't really understand what you've meant with that sentence. You're saying I can act and do in the same ways (moral, scientific, logical etc.), but not understand my own actions? I'm sorry but that just sounds rather ridiculous to me.

It's like giving a name to a certain type of new method of movement and stating that the thing in question never really moved because it did not know what it's movement is called or caused by. Even though it does understand quite perfectly that it's legs or whatever are needed to be able to move.

I'll admit it's not the best analogy in the world, but it might give you an idea.

Cheers