>
> You did not dispute either my premises or my reasoning in the argument that is at the top of the post. It seems to me that if those three premises are true, the conclusion must be. You say the conclusion is false. If this is so, then either one or more of my premises is false or there is an error within the line of reasoning used. Bringing in external evidence that contradicts the conclusion does not invalidate the argument.
>

I think what I may be disputing is your contention that God controls the intrinsic nature of souls. It is my understanding from your original post that you're saying it is that God sets these intricate natures of said souls. If I'm not mistaken, one of your original questions was asking exactly what this intrinsic nature *was*. I think that nature would be God's influence upon us, which is one that would exist outside the physical laws (which seems to be what you're saying this intrinsic nature is) but not necessarily that it is a controlling influence, as per your assumption. I'm probably misunderstanding what it is that you are meaning by the intrinsic nature of a soul.

This influence upon us from God would have to be capable of evil to *be* the control you are assuming it is. I would think for a decision to be an evil one, the influences upon it would have to be evil. That would mean either the intrinsic nature of a soul would have to wholly in the control of evil, or the physical things experienced by said soul/body would have to be of an evil nature, seeing as all decisions are the product of a combination of those two factors. The non-physical influences upon us would be God and...Satan, evil, sin, etc, I'd imagine. And those who are pushed to commit an evil act are being influenced to make their decision one in favor of evil. Meaning that there must have been an overwhelmingly evil factor in the decision making process, which is composed of physical experiences and intrinsic soul nature. And if God were totally controlling both of those factors, then neither could ever be evil.

This full control cannot exist, because God cannot control, or influence, anything to be evil. Therefore, I don't think the control clauses in (1) and especially (2) can be true.

And I'm going to assume that I didn't do this in a properly logical fashion. At least I'm learning something out of all this. ;-P

>
> I hear this a lot. It's a tangent, but one worth addressing because unless we settle it all further discussion is worthless.
>
> What does it mean to say god exists outside of logical laws? I'm not sure. Logic is a set of principles that is concerned chiefly with internal consistency (as above, a logically valid argument need not have any relation to the outside universe). In other words:
>
> "All zaks are blowmfor.
> Some zaks are boldorg.
> Therefore, some blowmfor are boldorg."
>
> Is completely logically valid. It means NOTHING, has no bearing on reality, and yet is valid. How could god do something that was logically invalid? It would mean that he was capable of being inconsistent. The fundamental principle in logic is that of non-contradiction. "A is A and not non-A." In other words, something can't be something that it is not. This makes sense. How can god make A be non-A while still being A? He couldn't. The fact of the matter is that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible; how could it?
>

Because God does not exist under the laws of logic that we do. The supernatural are capable of many things that we are not. Defying logic being one of them. Causing a virgin to become pregnant with the Son of God, breaking pretty much any known natural law, being another. God is capable of many things that the human mind cannot, no matter how hard it tries, no matter how much it reasons, grasp.

> This, however, is a different question from, "Can we determine the nature of god with logic?" I think the answer is yes. The problem we run into is a lack of observational evidence. Given enough data, it is comprehendable that we could understand god (though there may be aspects to him that our brains can't handle). In this way, though, it's our biology that's at fault, not logical principles.
>
> Stephen

The Other "So, have I proved my utter lack of knowing what I'm talking about yet?" Matthew