[quote]You're entire argument is nonsense. You don't grasp that while logic does exist, it changes as well. It's not a constant.[/quote] lol... Logic is not fluid, anymore than the answer to 2+2 can be fluid. Sorry to be blunt, but you have to be retarded or blinded by your sheer egotism to believe logic is man's opinion and can change from this to that. 2+2 will always equal 4. I mean, you can believe some day that it might equal 5 all you want, but i think it's utterly retarded. [quote]It's built on truths we learn and discover about reality. Your logic for God isnt built on an objective truth, and the conclusion that is deduced from that unproven assumption is equally unproven, and therefore not objectively true.[/quote] for the 6th time now, provide a counter argument to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. You simply assert, "it's not true! It's not true! It's all assumptions!!!11" without even addressing the thesis. Putting your finger in your ears and going "lalalala it's false bc false! It's false bc false!" Is cute, but i need a real rebuttal that actually acknowledges the logical deduction we're discussing. [quote]You can't compare an objective truth to a subjective idea and say the idea is validated. It doesn't work that way as you seem to think.[/quote] i'm not. You are. Logic is objective. But you think it's a subjective opinion that can change... [quote] I can have the greatest most logical idea of all time, but the idea is not true until it can be verified. You can't verify or test your philosophical idea, hence the reason it is philosophy. [/quote] No, it is true. If there was a really really long and complex math equation, that has no relevance to the real world, how do you determine if the answer is true? [quote]I can go go get 2 objects, and then 2 more objects and plainly see that 2+2=4. It can be tested and verified. Your belief in the pure act and unmoved mover cannot be. [/quote] materialists are so elementary aha... Imagine a longh string of random numbers, and plus signs, and square roots, ontop of divisions, and multiplications, on top of even more random numbers. To find whether that answer is true, do you logically deduce the problem? Or do you, like you're suggesting, find a bunch of rocks, multiply them in your cloning machine, divide them with your precision fraction cutting machine, just to figure out the answer? You worship physical objects, it's quite funny. Truth can be determined via use of the objective metaphysical laws of logic, material objects are not neccessary. But if you need 2 cans and put them next 2 other cans, to realize 2+2=4, that's fine, most children need that kind of presentation. But I can figure it out in my head via logic. The same way I can figure out a Pure Act is necessary for anything to exist at all.