Well don't let them fool you. Most of the time those people aren't even being logical at all. What far too many people do is claim to be using 'logic' when in truth all they are doing is running around semantic bushes never stating anything concrete and pretending to always have a 'logically superior argument' when in fact they have nothing but empty gobbledygook.

Those kinds of people are a dime a dozen. Unfortunately.

Stick them in a math class and you'll quickly discover that they don't even understand logic at all.

That's where you're Wrong!!! BECAUSE THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH -- since everything's relative...

** The main purpose of this forum is a Discussion, even an Argument! (which isn't a bad word at this forum.)

That's the essence of Phillosophy!!! (i.e. flexing one's mental muscles... -- the most Unisexual exercise the is!)

"FINDing THE TRUTH" is just a side-effect!* * *

If that's what you're interested in, then you better create your own thread -- A MUTUAL AGREEMENT SOCIETY -- where only Undisputed facts would be posted, and no Arguments allowed...
______________ BORING!______________
( * * * That would be Most illogical * * * )

I have had my 'beliefs' dislodged many times for the sake of knowledge. I remember when I was 20. I was certain I was right. More than once I was proved beyond any doubt that I had been very wrong. Hence, I changed my beliefs. I am 60 years old now. I know a lot more. I have different beliefs.

Beliefs change. You are not your beliefs. If you hold onto your beliefs as if you think they are you, then you will not learn much, and you will have what is called "a closed mind."

I have many 'beliefs."

and yet..

The only thing I am certain of is that I exist.

JasonP,
When any religion is faced with thought, knowledge, or technology which challenges its very foundation, man's creativity can be boundless. This is how religous evolve and at least one religion is still here because of this creative evolution.

The challenge of the question you are exploring has already been met and resolved.

God the trinity - God became man in the form Christins call 'son'. Hense God does know fear and pain and experienced it first hand.

Logic is often an exercise in creativity, but without a firm and proven theory logic is just a creative effort - but in religion, creativity is logic because belief proves it.

Bite the bullet on this and try again!

The example of superman is a little bit different, since it talks about “extraordinary”, not “courageous”. And there’s no doubt that what is “ordinary” for superman is “extraordinary” for a mere human.

But don’t forget that what makes one ordinary and the other extraordinary is that the two are being judged by different standards. In other words, there’s a double standard at work. The two are being judged according to their capabilities and not by how many people were saved. Saving 1000 people is pretty extraordinary regardless of who does it.

* * * Frankly, jason, I'm appauled with you:
As a religious person, HOW DARE YOU REFER TO GOD IN THIRD TENSE? ? ?
That's a blathphemy!!! Aren't you concerned you might burn inHell?!!
______________HE might and will panish you!!!

* * * REPENT, you sinner, before it is too late!!! * * *

If you'll confess your sins, then ________ He will reward you!!!

God dispenses reward & panishment -- in response to whether He's pleased of displeased...

That means GOD HAS AMOTIONS!!! And, consequently, He might have Mood (and mood-swings)...
*** Gee, I thought those qualities are reserved only for the mortals!!!

Then, if He's familiar with the Mood, He must also be familiar with Pleasure and Pain (and, by transitivity, with Fear and Bravery)!

I REST MY CASE!!!

P.S. this topic really has NO FACKEN PLACE IN THE "SCI + PHI" forum!

Well sure it’s solid if you start with a definition of God that includes built-in limitations.

You’re saying that it is impossible for God to feel fear. That even if he wanted to, he couldn’t.

Now, if that’s your concept of God, then it is clear that the God you’re talking about cannot feel fear, and thus cannot be courageous. No disagreement there.

But realize that your logic is based entirely on a concept of God which includes built-in limitations on his abilities.

Now my concept of God does not contain any limitations at all. So your logic does not apply to my concept of God.

Simple.

much better! that makes a little more sense. and no it doesnt otherwise we would agree right?
i agree that God could feel fear if he wanted to. according to the bible hes the alpha and omega, the creator, a God of love and war...
i imagine if hes that powerfull, he can do whatever he feels like.
but is it exrtaordinary? if superman saves 1000 lives and beats the bad guy with his bare hands tomorrow, thats great, im glad he did it...but thats his job and he probably didnt work up a sweat. but for a mortal to do the same, kowing hes mortal and can die... that is extraordinary.
now im a curious sob, but i do believe in God and if God is what they say he is, im sure hes laughing at me right now. it was just a thought, but a good one. and a logical one.

Ok, here’s the definition of “fear” I am using (from dictionary.com) “a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.”

You state a conclusion (“God cannot feel fear”) based on the two premises (“God cannot die” and “One must be able to die in order to feel fear”.)

However, the definition of fear specifies “impending danger, evil, pain, etc.” Thus, impending death is not the only condition under which one can feel fear.

Now if one goes by biblical accounts, God can experience impending evil. (See Revelations.)

Thus, the conclusion “God cannot feel fear” does not logically follow from the definition of the word "fear".

That's pretty much what I thought. So as I said, there have been at least three of them.

Shouldn't this topic be in the "Religion" section?

The question posed has a direct relation to one's beliefs.
To suppose you can surpass God has to be the thoughts of a non-Christian. (in my opinion)
As a Christian, the mere thought has implications of pride and vanity, both of which are not in tune with the teachings of Christ.
There have been many selfless courageous acts performed by men, yet I feel they have not surpassed God at all.

Now let's address the question logically and simply...
I would not think man has surpassed God until that man has no fear like you suggest God doesn't. To give a man credit for overcoming fear when God doesn't have to is like saying the man who went from 500lbs down to 200lbs surpassed someone who was already 200lbs. ( a very simple analogy)

In my opinion, the only way to surpass God would be to will God out of existence and take His place.

firstly, it's an open forum and people can say whatever they choose. secondly, right or wrong IS as each individual sees right and wrong to be. for instance, i think it wrong for you to say in open forum, "quit assuming you are right and i am wrong" to another forum participant. you obviously see nothing wrong in it. as you say, it's all interpretation and judgement.

Not sure what you mean by "solid counter" but I assume you mean something to the effect of "logical refutation".

If so, then it looks to me like there were at least three of them.

The one that seems the strongest is that the all of the premises are based on nothing more than personal opinion.

I think that the fundamental source of war must first be identified.

Now many have said that "it's human nature", with the implication that war is an integral part of humanity. That is, if we did not engage in war, we would not be human but something else.

I however, do not agree with that stance.

As I see it, war is fundamentally an attempt to eliminate opposition to the attainment of a goal. How big the war is is simply a reflection of how many people share the opposing goals.

So the only way to completely eliminate war is to either
1) Destroy everything that is in opposition to one of the goals so that there will no longer be any opposition, or
2) Change one or both of the goals so that the goals themselves are no longer in opposition.

Obviously, #2 would be the better choice for all concerned.

Of course, that still leaves the question of "how"?

Well, considering that #1 is the domain of the military, and #2 is the domain of the diplomats, I would have to conclude that diplomacy is the only answer.

Is it possible? I think it is. But I don't think it is by any means easy. In fact it may very well be the most difficult thing man could possibly do.