Nevermind.

Definately.

It was an old joke, but then all of my jokes are old, and used. I don't actually think I've had an original thought in 38 years. :P

A woman really could have done a better job. And I'm deadly serious.

I think we are getting somewhere. I am not ignoring you, I am ignoring what I see as distractions and trying to focus on the main disagreeement as I don't want to disagree with you forever.

Here is where I see you proving my theory about you:
[i]"The way to prove that something is not possible is to show that it is illogical"
"You prove something is true when you show that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt"
"A hypothetical that has not been shown to be logically coherent does not yet count as a possibility."
"You can postulate all the illogical things that you want, but they're all impossible because they're all illogical."[/i]

To me it's obvious that you are taking human conceptions of logic and proof and extrapolating them too far, to the entire existence. Dogmatic atheists do the exact same.

As you also said, this is not complicated. For you logical = possible = true = proved. According to your definitions paradoxes are logical. They are certainly possible: This sentence is false.

If such a paradox exists and therefore must be logical, I don't see why you can't consider the possibility that the universe is itself a paradox. It-self emerged, is impossible to understand, etc... You admit it is a hypothesis, you just consider it impossible a priori. I am ok to say it's illogical, but through defining logic differently to you, without the same semantics of excluding reality spaces.

Remember when I said logic was your god?

To me, and this is why it got a bit personal, it all reduces to how you believe and the fact you are not confortable questioning your beliefs sincerely. You are not confortable doubting. You appear unable to ask: What becomes true, if my dogma is false?

Can you imagine it? Dissociate your beliefs from the philosophical process and see where the process takes you. Your faith may be stronger or weaker after you go there. Mine was weaker, but I don't wish you the same, nor harm. I do wish you would be less arrogant of truth - less dogmatic.

This is a final post, I think our positions are clear and fully expect you will again dissect and destroy my meaning, instead of taking it as is.

Only the same answer I've given before about Genesis - it's allegorical and wasn't written down for a long time. Other than some Creationists who take the Bible literally, I'm not sure I know of any Christians who think God actually made man then made woman from his rib-bone. It's true that Eve is portrayed as convincing Adam to break the rules, and then it's also called Adam's sin by the men (so not entirely Eve's fault). I don't think it's necessarily sexist to say that one came first.
I agree with your point about male priests. I don't know of a reason why it should be that way, other than the male dominated hierarchy to begin with. CofE have female vicars now but no bishops - I guess traditions are hard to break. What's the phrase? "correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation" ?
Let's compare with non-Judeo-Christian cultures: China, Japan, India - these are based around Buddhism and also (for India) Hinduism. And yet they have the same situations of having more men in the better jobs and better paid. And women having a lower social status. (I live in China and having a son is still considered better than a daughter, 'pilot' is not a woman's job etc)
So I don't think you can blame the religion for this. It's more down to men being (on average) stronger and more aggressive and producing a society where some jobs are for the men, others for the women. Then why does the phrase bear repeating? It's reasonable, yes, but not followed. Those cultures lasted so long by being strong (militarily and/or 'scientifically' (in the sense of having good ways to produce food/clothing/buildings/educating the elite)). The phrase isn't exactly 'unruly children' - it's more 'profligate and a drunkard' (assuming we're talking about Deuteronomy 21:18-21(if not - please refer)
So we're not talking about babes or toddlers - we're talking legally responsible people who've been breaking the law, given several chances to change and are still wild, licentious drunkards.
The key parts here are "You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid." (or "be in awe of God" depending on translation)
At the time, they were in danger of becoming like any other society. This kind of severe punishment kept even the unruly ones focussed on obeying God's laws and closer to Him.

I'd like to thank Tallima for explaining it, but I'll reply directly too. Clearly, by using the word 'omnipotent' we're not referring to something that is self-contradictory, just someone/thing that is 'all-powerful' as far as that can go, as I explained in my post. Hence, our disagreement here is merely semantics.
Interesting, thanks for the links :)

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. Wikipedia (correctly) states that male terms are used in the Old and New Testment for the god. In earlier, similar creation myths there is a duality of female deity (earth) and a male deity that "merge" to bring forth creation (It always comes down to sex to create something ;-)).
You can see that in language: Matter, Material comes from mater (mother).
In fact, the some pre-Old-Testament texts used a grammatical trick to describe the workings of the merged god(s): using a male noun and female verb and vice verse.

When the patriarchs took over they purged the female god from the stories, creating an all male cult. In fact, by the time the Old Testment was written down they had incorporated a lot of stories from different gods and simply replaced them with their own god. That is why the god of the Old Testament often seems erratic - from loving and protecting to outright cruel and vengeful. In merging all kinds of god into one they gave him a bad case of dissociative identity disorder.

If you want to see a religion that is half way to becoming a monotheistic patriarchal cult take a look at norse mythology. Odin already is the "all-father" and accumulated a lot of aspects that usually are more spread out in polytheistic religions: He is god of wisdom and knowledge, magic, warfare, prophecy, hunting and the arts. That leaves not a lot to do for the rest of the bunch ;-). In fact he is a perfect example what a single main god of a nomadic warlike tribe would be like.

In fact, the expulsion from paradise, if you leave out god for a while, is a pretty cool and wise metaphor. It's actually about the dawn of consciousness, about the transition from aninal mind to human mind.
In the beginning there was a blissful ignorance - that was paradise. Animals don't have a concept of work or labor. Building a nest, hunting for food, feeding and raising the offspring is not conceived as hardship, it's just done. Animals don't know about death.
Then there was a spark: Self-awareness dawned. With self-awareness there came the concepts of work being hard. The awareness of the own mortality and the fear of death. And the idea of shame. With that step done there was no turning back. Paradise was lost.
Now let's look at some of the symbols: The snake is of course the "bringer" of the spark. The snake is a very old symbol of electricity and lightning that comes down "from the heavens". The snake is Lucifer, the Light-Bringer. In other traditions the "becoming self-concsious" is closely linked to starting the use of fire (see Prometheus). Also very common is that the "bringing of the light" is done in spite of the god(s) and the lightbringer is punished in some way. Often the lightbringer is some form of trickster god (the snake as an animal being a good example) that itself is halfway between animal and conscious mind, often between male and female and always beyond (or rather "before") good and evil.

It's also not by chance that the tree is most often depicted as an apple tree. The apple is THE common symbol of the cycle of life, rebirth, rejuvination. See Idun's apples in norse mythology or the "land of apple trees" in celtic tradtitions where the souls go when they wait for rebirth. Or see Mother Hulda's land in the fairytale that is at the same time "underworld" and "heaven".
In more eastern countries the apple is often replaced by a peach.
So the tale essentially says, that consciousness developed through the cycle of procreation. That is also why the apple is held by the woman - the female is the one that holds the mystery of procreation.

Point taken. But you can't deny that the Abrahamic religions took their mysogeny to the extreme at times.

A society is stable when it agrees on certain rules that prevent people from hurting each other at will. A strong military is useful for protection from neighbors (or conquering them) and to quench the occasional unrest (someone is always unhappy with the current state of affairs). A society that doesn't implement the golden rule will dissolve very quickly. A society first needs stability as a premise to develop cultural progress. Labor division cannot function if people kill or cheat each other on a regular basis. But only specialization through labor division leads to the ability to produce advanced goods and to develop arts.
The problem is, the Golden Rule is most of the time followed only on the inside (the us in Us and Them). That also applied to the christian societies. Love your neighbor wasn't applied if your neighbor was "heathen" or even a different christian flavor.

Matthew 15:4 where Jesus quotes Exodus 21:17.

Also I don't understand "At the time, they were in danger of becoming like any other society." In what way? Were they something "better" by default?

In the last couple of decades the physical laws were tested over and over again in more and more sophisticated ways and it turned out they are true in an overwhelming number of observations if not all. So even if we don't exclude the possibility of a willful intervention, we have most probably never seen a willful intervention that does matter (i.e. is different from the usual behavior).

For me that is the point that matters most. It turns out that God (not religion which matters a lot obviously) matters only so marginally that he almost doesn't mattter at all (for me).

Doesn't matter much. Then I just say that people who believe probably would prefer a God that really cares not just causes the universe here and now. Even a big pacemaker is as impersonal as it gets.

Shut the fuck up you fedora wearing neckbeard.

If all humanity were wiped out tomorrow, gravity would still exist, logic would still exist, and 1 + 1 would will equal 2. Humans have developed symbols that represent these concepts, but these concepts exist independently from humans because they are inherent to the universe.

All things that aren't illogical are possible, but not everything that is possible is true or proved.

That sentence isn't true and isn't false, so it simply has a neutral truth value.

By "hypothetical" I meant a proposition that is not supported by available evidence, not one that is poorly supported, so it was poor word choice. I now commend you for finally trying to support your proposition by the existence of paradox, but something being neither true nor false is not the same as being both true and false in the same sense and at the same time.

God is inherently logical, but logic is not God.

I've told you before that I have no doubt at least one of my beliefs is actually false, so I'm more willing to question my beliefs than the average person. I'm perfectly comfortable and willing to consider evidence against the resurrection of Jesus because it is possible for me to have misinterpreted it, and if I have, then I want to know. What I am not willing to do is consider to possibility of something that is illogical.

Just as it is impossible for anyone to accurately imagine a square circle, it is impossible for anyone to accurately imagine what a paradoxical universe would be like. The idea of a universe where anything and everything can and does pop into and out of existence uncaused has no relation whatsoever to the universe in which we live. The way to show that something doesn't exist is to show that it is illogical, so it is inherently impossible for your illogical universe to exist.

In summary, in order to challenge my premise, you need to both show that your premise is possible and that it is more plausible, neither of which you have done. It is not even remotely plausible for your premise to be true. As such, my premises are the most plausible and you should be willing to accept the conclusion that necessarily follows. However, I can't force you to accept logic, so if you choose not to reply, then that's up to you.

On a side note, backlash is expected from many religious groups when the new movie "Noah" opens next month because evidently the movie doesn't stay entirely true to what really happened.

Yeah. Okay. Sure.

Great.

I wonder if anyone will even bother to point out that in reality Noah probably wasn't Australian. :D

Why shouldn't he be?

Well regardless of what did or did not happen, most scholars do agree that if the flood did happen if probably took place before Australia existed. I was trying to be ironic. Someone is going to jump up and scream, "In the bible Noah never said that! Heresy!" but then they'll completely overlook the obvious casting discrepancies.