The Religion Discussion

[Habit7]

The Bible starts out with God supernaturally creating the entire universe, so if after all of that you act incredulous that once a snake and donkey supernaturally talk, you are being underwhelming.

If you think God is myth then prove the society that invented the God myth that preexisted as atheists. This shouldn't be hard for you because I can do this with leprechauns. Or is this strong evidence/no evidence?

This is from the Bible you claim to know and judge.

Actually Christianity contemplates if it is false as done by the writings of Apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

Christianity is open to scrutiny, investigation and rejection. Unlike the other folks...

[crock101]

habit.
please ....please tell me how you are going to disprove leprechauns , the little green men who keep pots of gold at the end of rainbows....please.

i am impressed by the talking snake and donkey because it shows the disconnect in your mind
where you can have a perfectly rational thought process for the rest your your life but then consciously throw it out the window when you get to this topic where suddenly logic and reason seem to have no home.

all the people in the world who existed before a con-man made up the god myth would not have been atheists, they would have just been ordinary people, if the myth hasn't been made up yet there would be no context for the belief or non belief on this particular subject.

Leviticus 24:16 says, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.”

this verse does not seem to very willing to allow scrutiny,investigation and rejection ,this kind of thing sure does make an open, honest discussion difficult to have, was the apostle paul risking his life by questioning the resurrection of jesus.

[Habit7]

Leprechauns make their first appearance in an 8th-century poem. King Fergus of Ulster wakes up to find tiny, angry men sneakily trying to drag him into the ocean and drown him while he sleeps. http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/st-pat ... ts-5329130

It seems disingenuous that you unwilling to entertain supernatural beings using an animal to talk, but you are willing to entertain aliens. You don't have a problem with the incredible, you just have a bias.

It would seem that your belief that God is myth created by someone or some people bears no evidence. What other beliefs you hold to by faith?

I know you don't understand the Bible you quote but what you just quoted was 7th century BC Israeli civil law in a theocratic nation, that nation does not exist today. It is akin to Lèse-majesté and sedition laws we have today. However that theocratic Israeli nation didn't exist at the time of Paul. In fact Jesus stood accused of breaking this law (Mark 14). The Jews could not execute Him so they had to force the Romans to execute Him based on Roman Lèse-majesté. Paul and subsequent Christians were persecuted for these laws even as Christians are in atheistic communists states today.

So the concept of freedom of religion rises from Christianity, not from atheism.

[meccalli]

this verse does not seem to very willing to allow scrutiny,investigation and rejection

Yes, because we don't base theology and actions on scraps of information that hold no context and historical custom on their own.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth. By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established.
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong,
then both the men involved in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who shall be in those days;
and the judges shall make diligent inquisition. And behold, if the witness be a false witness and hath testified falsely against his brother,
19 then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother; so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

[bluesclues]

No you didn't quote me in your responses. You willing to put money on that? No where in your response did you quote me, it's there for everyone to see. Why are you resorting to lies? Stop being dishonest please.

If the topic is "you cannot perceive all forms of logic when presented to you" then you have to show what you mean by that.
You cannot speak English?
Learn the meaning of the word Logic
How many times do I have to repeat the following:

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic.

well i have you cornered here now. because here i am certainly quoting you saying both deciphered and undeciphered language is not a form of logic. keep repeating it to yourself to reinforce your unfounded belief based on assumption and insufficient data. so allow me to formally announce "Check" in this game of chess.

question.. to you.. are all things that are based on mathematics logical?
is language thus based on mathematics?

if language is not based on mathematics, and is not logical.. then you admit that you utilize language which is considered 'illogical' BY YOU in a world you assume to be COMPLETELY logical?

explain now how you illogical language is not logical, but logical at the same time. whether it be english or spanish. this is assuming from your dialogue, that you can speak all the languages of the world and understand them just by looking at them.

i rest my case.

[MD Marketers]

No you didn't quote me in your responses. You willing to put money on that? No where in your response did you quote me, it's there for everyone to see. Why are you resorting to lies? Stop being dishonest please.

If the topic is "you cannot perceive all forms of logic when presented to you" then you have to show what you mean by that.
You cannot speak English?
Learn the meaning of the word Logic
How many times do I have to repeat the following:

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic.

well i have you cornered here now. because here i am certainly quoting you saying both deciphered and undeciphered language is not a form of logic. keep repeating it to yourself to reinforce your unfounded belief based on assumption and insufficient data. so allow me to formally announce "Check" in this game of chess.

question.. to you.. are all things that are based on mathematics logical?
is language thus based on mathematics?

if language is not based on mathematics, and is not logical.. then you admit that you utilize language which is considered 'illogical' BY YOU in a world you assume to be COMPLETELY logical?

explain now how you illogical language is not logical, but logical at the same time. whether it be english or spanish. this is assuming from your dialogue, that you can speak all the languages of the world and understand them just by looking at them.

i rest my case.

log·ic/ˈläjik/
noun
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

How exactly does language (deciphered or undeciphered) fall under logic?
How can you even classify it as a form of logic?
These are only 2 types of logic:
Deductive Logic & Inductive Logic.
google it.
Why do you continue to make these things up as you go and where do you get off expecting other people to believe these fabrications.

I have yet to see someone publish an article proving language to be a form of logic yet here you are continuously making this absurd claim.

As for the rest of the stuff about everything being mathematical, I never said that nor do I conform to such a belief.
The only thing I believe for absolutely certain is that "thoughts are real".
So stop asking me to defend or explain something I don't believe in nor did I say.

It's almost as if you are talking to me one minute and then you start responding to someone else that isn't here.
When last you had your head examined? You may have a medical condition.

How did you divide by Zero and not get Zero? Lying for the sake of attention as usual I suppose.

[rspann]

Anyone willing to share an experience that happened to you that convinced you that God is real?

This was the opening post on this thread,it has changed a lot since. There was a time I enjoyed coming here to follow the discussion and to share in it. It has now become a competition between men who just cutting and pasting things they don't even understand and like they trying to sound educated and to convince every body of their beliefs.

[bluesclues]

No you didn't quote me in your responses. You willing to put money on that? No where in your response did you quote me, it's there for everyone to see. Why are you resorting to lies? Stop being dishonest please.

If the topic is "you cannot perceive all forms of logic when presented to you" then you have to show what you mean by that.
You cannot speak English?
Learn the meaning of the word Logic
How many times do I have to repeat the following:

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic.

well i have you cornered here now. because here i am certainly quoting you saying both deciphered and undeciphered language is not a form of logic. keep repeating it to yourself to reinforce your unfounded belief based on assumption and insufficient data. so allow me to formally announce "Check" in this game of chess.

question.. to you.. are all things that are based on mathematics logical?
is language thus based on mathematics?

if language is not based on mathematics, and is not logical.. then you admit that you utilize language which is considered 'illogical' BY YOU in a world you assume to be COMPLETELY logical?

explain now how you illogical language is not logical, but logical at the same time. whether it be english or spanish. this is assuming from your dialogue, that you can speak all the languages of the world and understand them just by looking at them.

i rest my case.

log·ic/ˈläjik/
noun
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

How exactly does language (deciphered or undeciphered) fall under logic?
How can you even classify it as a form of logic?
These are only 2 types of logic:
Deductive Logic & Inductive Logic.
google it.
Why do you continue to make these things up as you go and where do you get off expecting other people to believe these fabrications.

I have yet to see someone publish an article proving language to be a form of logic yet here you are continuously making this absurd claim.

As for the rest of the stuff about everything being mathematical, I never said that nor do I conform to such a belief.
The only thing I believe for absolutely certain is that "thoughts are real".
So stop asking me to defend or explain something I don't believe in nor did I say.

It's almost as if you are talking to me one minute and then you start responding to someone else that isn't here.
When last you had your head examined? You may have a medical condition.

How did you divide by Zero and not get Zero? Lying for the sake of attention as usual I suppose.

the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one?

so anyway.. from all what you repeating over and over in your head.. you saying loanguage is NOT based on logic right? at least to your understanding language is not based on logic.. correct?

[megadoc1]

MD ans BLUES allyuh really mess up this thing

[bluesclues]

me .. i done with he inno. i just want to see him make one definitive statement.. which he cant make.. because he will realise the major contradiction to reality he considers a world view. he cah swing left. he cah swing right.

the most i expect out of him though, is to make a set of repetition again forgetting the 3rd form of logic which he represents.. ILL-LOGIC lol.

[MD Marketers]

me .. i done with he inno. i just want to see him make one definitive statement.. which he cant make.. because he will realise the major contradiction to reality he considers a world view. he cah swing left. he cah swing right.

the most i expect out of him though, is to make a set of repetition again forgetting the 3rd form of logic which he represents.. ILL-LOGIC lol.

Speaking of illogical.
I'm still waiting for you to show the world:
1. How you were able to divide by Zero and not get Zero.
2. How you were able to claim language & illogic are forms of logic when the only 2 forms of Logic we know are Inductive & Deductive.

Does anyone remember this?

"language is not knowledge. it's cryptography... cryptography is advanced logic."
"the topic is whether or not you can perceive all forms of logic when they are presented to you."

"Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic."
"These are only 2 types of logic: Deductive Logic & Inductive Logic."

you saying loanguage is NOT based on logic right?

Md Marketers: "not a FORM of logic."
bluesclues: "loanguage is NOT BASED on logic right"
Md Marketers: "FORM"
bluesclues: "based?"
Md Marketers: "Schizophrenia"

Good thing you aren't a dishonest, scheming, attention seeking illiterate person Bluesclues or I would have stopped responding to you a long time ago.

[bluesclues]

rofl..

u stressing so much the difference between "form of" and "based on". while im still left to wonder.. what is the difference. the summary of what you saying is that language is not logical. right?

lel

[MD Marketers]

rofl..

u stressing so much the difference between "form of" and "based on". while im still left to wonder.. what is the difference. the summary of what you saying is that language is not logical. right?

lel

Wrong. No one said that.
Or at least clearly I didn't say it.
If you can't quote someone properly or even remember what they said how can you possibly respond to them properly.

I just showed you in the post before that I clearly stated "... language is not a form of Logic"
How can you equate that to mean "language is not logical"
What exactly is that supposed to mean anyway.
Did you drop out of primary school after the teacher asked you to divide by Zero & you didn't get Zero?

[bluesclues]

so language is not based on logic
language is not a form of logic
but it is logical?


what then is the aspect that allows language to be classified under logic?

[MD Marketers]

so language is not based on logic
language is not a form of logic
but it is logical?


what then is the aspect that allows language to be classified under logic?

Are you asking me or telling me?
Language is classed under Communication

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel & stop trying to claim I said something which I didn't.
Start showing me how you were able to divide by Zero and not get Zero

[bluesclues]

i tryin to understand what u trying to tell me.

u say language is not a form of logic. you also said it is not based on logic. isnt this the same as saying language is not logical?

[MD Marketers]

i tryin to understand what u trying to tell me.

u say language is not a form of logic. you also said it is not based on logic. isnt this the same as saying language is not logical?

Continuing to misquote me I see. No where on these forums have I written "language is not based on logic" or have I even insinuated the idea.
Language being a form of communication and not a form of logic in no way means "language is not logical"
How do you correlate the two.
Also explain what the phrase "language is logical" could possibly mean.

Lastly, how did you divide by Zero & not get Zero?

[Habit7]

MD Marketers and Bluesclues you all are not even discussing religion. Quit the psychobabble.

[bluesclues]

i tryin to understand what u trying to tell me.

u say language is not a form of logic. you also said it is not based on logic. isnt this the same as saying language is not logical?

Continuing to misquote me I see. No where on these forums have I written "language is not based on logic" or have I even insinuated the idea.
Language being a form of communication and not a form of logic in no way means "language is not logical"
How do you correlate the two.
Also explain what the phrase "language is logical" could possibly mean.

Lastly, how did you divide by Zero & not get Zero?

Is all you do avoid questions and then make accusations?

U disagree with me saying language is based on logic because it is based on mathematics. U went on to categorically state that deciphered or undeciphered language is NOT a form of logic.

So since.. 'nowhwre on the forum have you written language is not based on logic'

Am i to believe then that you agree with the statement 'language is based on logic'?



-----
And for those having trouble following the discussion u are free to have your own and ignore ours. As a matter of fact since it seems im the only clear headed one here let me remind us all what the topic is that me and md marketers are discussing.

We are disccussing the possibility that even though the existence of God is a logical deduction gained from REASONING in a certain perspective. That not everyone will be able to understand that reasoning and see that perspective. Especially when they have not properly studied the information associated with religion. Thus an atheist, though attempting to think logically and form reasoning connections will fail to see the reasoning because he/she has not studied religion deeply enough. But with enough study he may be able to see the reasoning which leads believers to have faith.

Hereby i wish to demonstrate that insufficient data is not a justification for denouncing the existence of God. And that an atheist, unlearned in the depth of religion can justifiably be considered to possess insufficient data. Thus any conclusion he may arrive at is all based on assumption. Providing him NO LOGICAL WEIGHT to tell believers that they believe in nonsense. Nor is he capable of interpretting scriptures and shouldnt be telling them what their own belief means.

This is the full cross discussion that habit crock slarti and md marketers is having. Only reason i could be off topic is that you all having trouble retaining information.

Md u could lose them. But not me bro. Im much too focussed and knowledgable in this field for you to conffuffle me with any amount of meandering or even while holding multiple conversations with multiple ppl. Dont try it. U wasting time trying such disingenuous debate strategy publicly. Like i said.. when u try them ting i will call u out.. md marketers.

[bluesclues]

anyway

md marketers u wrong all over


a programming language is based on logic. it is a language. just like binary which is made up of ones and zeroes. it is a language. a language based on mathematics.. just like all langiages are. meaning language is logical and based on logic as well ass it is a form of logic because it is based on logic and used in REASONING... which is a process of logical deduction.


ur problem... u dont know how languages are created and how their laws are defined. its all mathematics son.

[MD Marketers]

i tryin to understand what u trying to tell me.

u say language is not a form of logic. you also said it is not based on logic. isnt this the same as saying language is not logical?

Continuing to misquote me I see. No where on these forums have I written "language is not based on logic" or have I even insinuated the idea.
Language being a form of communication and not a form of logic in no way means "language is not logical"
How do you correlate the two.
Also explain what the phrase "language is logical" could possibly mean.

Lastly, how did you divide by Zero & not get Zero?

Is all you do avoid questions and then make accusations?

U disagree with me saying language is based on logic because it is based on mathematics. U went on to categorically state that deciphered or undeciphered language is NOT a form of logic.

So since.. 'nowhwre on the forum have you written language is not based on logic'

Am i to believe then that you agree with the statement 'language is based on logic'?



-----
And for those having trouble following the discussion u are free to have your own and ignore ours. As a matter of fact since it seems im the only clear headed one here let me remind us all what the topic is that me and md marketers are discussing.

We are disccussing the possibility that even though the existence of God is a logical deduction gained from REASONING in a certain perspective. That not everyone will be able to understand that reasoning and see that perspective. Especially when they have not properly studied the information associated with religion. Thus an atheist, though attempting to think logically and form reasoning connections will fail to see the reasoning because he/she has not studied religion deeply enough. But with enough study he may be able to see the reasoning which leads believers to have faith.

Hereby i wish to demonstrate that insufficient data is not a justification for denouncing the existence of God. And that an atheist, unlearned in the depth of religion can justifiably be considered to possess insufficient data. Thus any conclusion he may arrive at is all based on assumption. Providing him NO LOGICAL WEIGHT to tell believers that they believe in nonsense. Nor is he capable of interpretting scriptures and shouldnt be telling them what their own belief means.

This is the full cross discussion that habit crock slarti and md marketers is having. Only reason i could be off topic is that you all having trouble retaining information.

Md u could lose them. But not me bro. Im much too focussed and knowledgable in this field for you to conffuffle me with any amount of meandering or even while holding multiple conversations with multiple ppl. Dont try it. U wasting time trying such disingenuous debate strategy publicly. Like i said.. when u try them ting i will call u out.. md marketers.

You mistake your dishonesty for intelligence.
I cannot even get to the point of discussing religion with you Bluesclues.
Your conversation won't get past the first paragraph because of your dishonesty:

You will say:
Language is a form of logic

I will say:
Language is not a form of logic

You will say:
So you're saying language is not based on logic?

I will say:
No I never said that.

You will say:
Oh you believe that language isn't based on logic. I got you now.

I will say:
But I never said that

You will say:
I am sure you said it

I will say:
But... I never said that.

Add 1000000 more pages of this and we will still be on the first paragraph.

All this could be avoided if you would continue from language is or is not a form of logic because...

You fling so much sh!t at us that you not only hope it sticks, but you hope we are so engulfed in it we cannot think about anything else.

You commit so many logical fallacies when arguing that Philosophers would have a full time job naming them.

[bluesclues]

no u just hope u could run around in circles dodging forever. we past all that.

the standing question now is..

would you say that language is based on logic?

or

do you agree with the statement "language is based on logic"?

taking note that that was pretty obvious.. and u dodged it completely with a set of rambling. regarding the dishonesty.. seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black because that is the question ive been tryin to ask u for numerous posts and u keep dodging it. so who is dishonest and who keeps dodging and trying to change the topic?

[megadoc1]

bluesclues and madmarketers can you guys hit one another up via PM?

[MD Marketers]

no u just hope u could run around in circles dodging forever. we past all that.

the standing question now is..

would you say that language is based on logic?

or

do you agree with the statement "language is based on logic"?

taking note that that was pretty obvious.. and u dodged it completely with a set of rambling. regarding the dishonesty.. seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black because that is the question ive been tryin to ask u for numerous posts and u keep dodging it. so who is dishonest and who keeps dodging and trying to change the topic?

This is the first time you ever asked me this question directly.
Thank you for not repeating the stupid question that started all of this "Is language not a form of logic?"
Here is your answer:
Language: (noun) the method of human communication
Base: (noun) have as the foundation for something
Logic: (noun) reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

For anything to be based on logic it has to be some form of reasoning.
Language is not a form of reasoning.

Here are the different forms of reasoning:

Abduction: the process of creating explanatory hypotheses.
Backwards Reasoning: Start from what you want and work back.
Butterfly Logic: How people often argue.
Analogical Reasoning: relating things to novel other situations.
Cause-and-Effect Reasoning: showing causes and resulting effect.
Cause-to-Effects Reasoning: starting from the cause and going forward.
Effects-to-Cause Reasoning: starting from the effect and working backward.
The Bradford Hill Criteria: for cause and effect in medical diagnosis.
Comparative Reasoning: comparing one thing against another.
Conditional Reasoning: using if...then...
Criteria Reasoning: comparing against established criteria.
Decompositional Reasoning: understand the parts to understand the whole.
Deductive Reasoning: starting from the general rule and moving to specifics.
Exemplar Reasoning: using an example.
Inductive Reasoning: starting from specifics and deriving a general rule.
Modal Logic: arguing about necessity and possibility.
Pros-vs-cons Reasoning: using arguments both for and against a case.
Residue Reasoning: Removing first what is not logical.
Set-based Reasoning: based on categories and membership relationships.
Systemic Reasoning: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Syllogistic Reasoning: drawing conclusions from premises.
Traditional Logic: assuming premises are correct.

So no language is not based on Logic.

You were initially reasoning that:
"Secret knowledge can be used to logically prove that something exists"
This is terrible reasoning.
Why?
Because the absence of data renders the process of reasoning invalid.

Eg. Present day bananas are yellow because ancient Samarians knew they were yellow & told me in a dream.
You haven't presented any data to start the process of reasoning let alone verify your claim.

Present me with data (not hidden data) & the process of logic will determine validity of any claim.

Validity does not mean truth. So please don't say I said that.
Truth isn't determined by Logic, it's determined by scientific testing of evidence in a logical manner.

90% of your claims lack the evidence required for scientific testing.

[York]

Man was taught languages by God! Languages are creations of God.

[bluesclues]

For anything to be based on logic it has to be some form of reasoning.
Language is not a form of reasoning.

this is an interesting statement. however you still have not answered the question of 'your view'.

so after all this, what is tyour answer to the question? is it improper reasoning for me to deduce that you have therefore in summary said that language is not based on logic because it is not a form of reasoning?

thus can i quote u then as saying

language is not based on logic
and
language is not a form of reasoning

if this is all true. even after you denied it when i had reasoned it in advance of you it seems.

then please tell me what is the relationship between language and reasoning?

i am beginning to see how basally u apply the word logic though.

clue: we are using language right now to reason.

[MD Marketers]

For anything to be based on logic it has to be some form of reasoning.
Language is not a form of reasoning.

this is an interesting statement. however you still have not answered the question of 'your view'.

so after all this, what is tyour answer to the question? is it improper reasoning for me to deduce that you have therefore in summary said that language is not based on logic because it is not a form of reasoning?

thus can i quote u then as saying

language is not based on logic
and
language is not a form of reasoning

if this is all true. even after you denied it when i had reasoned it in advance of you it seems.

then please tell me what is the relationship between language and reasoning?

i am beginning to see how basally u apply the word logic though.

clue: we are using language right now to reason.

Then it would be a tool used in the process of finding logic in this regard.
It is not "based on" or a "form of" logic.

Just make sure it's the right tool.
Using an incomprehensible language to deduce logic is counter intuitive in the same way you wouldn't use a screw driver to cut a pipe.

Are you ever going to show me how to divide by zero & not get zero?

[bluesclues]

excellent. so language is a tool used for reasoning. and reasoning is form of logic. what is important to note about reasoning is that it does not require any real evidence except that which is logically presented through the use of language. which acts as evidence in itself because once all the logical factors are present it acts as a logical truth and thus considered factual.. generally.

now that i believe i have come to understand your singular view of logic and its application. allow me to add my view, which acknowledges your view as true, however identifies a possible contradiction. and for its demonstration i use.. reasoning.

in my view, the physical universe is bound to a logical foundation. meaning all its operations and functions follow logical laws which can be deduced through observation. this is supported in the scientific viewpoint which is why we even consider the development and use of 'logic' a credible means of deciphering our universe. and language is no exception. we have no need to consider 'incomprehensible languages' for purposes of this discussion. so all we are left with are comprehensible languages. languages which can be used in logical reasoning processes. if a language is illogical then no logic can be gleaned from it. but if a language adheres to logical contructs, then and only then is it useful in decribing or deciphering other logical occurrences. in short, we use logic to deduce and defend logic.

so in my view i charge that you cant produce logic without a logically constructed 'tool'. this is why language has grammatical rules. making language no exception to the laws of the physical universe and all contained within it. based on and operating on a logical foundation.

so if a language was not based on logic, or formed with logical rules, it would be a chaotic or gibberish language, and thus not useful for reasoning or any logical process. but because the language we are currently using for example, holds a logical adherence in it's own construction, we can use it for reasoning or other logical deductions and definitions.

in short. the universe has a logical explanation to all that exists within it. and language is no exception. from simple languages to complex languages and altered languages. all were constructed on a formula, and simple logic is merely compounded to creat complex logic.

i gonna stop here because i dont want to inadvertently teach you all how to create ai. yet! lol

[bluesclues]

about the divide by zero thing. i was having a similar discussion with a cryptographer by profession some years ago. a skilled high level mathematician as he was he pointed me to some advanced calculus where the topic was tackled and 0 chocolates were shared among some people. from what i understood, it was exploratory and imaginative. so they basically just worked with the 0 as though it was a real number, forwarding the fractions throughout the calculations. the end result just as the beginning though was still zero. but it demonstrated the ability to divide zero by using our 'imagination'.

dont play around with that stuff too much tho. it will probably send you mad.

i personally prefer to accept that infinity is a logical occurence of the 'universal set'. so wherever we bounce up 1/0 means we have arrived at the very walls of the universe. where its rules and boundaries end. beyond which exists not illogic, but super-logic. if u will permit me the use of the term.

that is basically for me to be able to differentiate between physicality's logic. and meta-physical logic. identifying that the 'logic' we so rever and perceive is only local to THIS Universe. and another universe may have different logical associations. in fact, it may not nor necessarily has to be... a PHYSICAL universe.

[MD Marketers]

Still haven't showed how you didn't get zero, but I'm now officially too fed up of asking to care any more.

How does what you have just said show that belief in God is logical?